PFD report

Matthew John LYNCH · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 4 Mar 2025•Birmingham and Solihull

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
2

Of 3 recipients

Stated actions
14

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 of internal investigations to verify relevant witness information and clinical address records
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate safety incident investigationsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable gathering of witness evidence for formal investigations
  2. Insufficient interagency information sharing with landlords
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable inter-agency information sharing for coordinated care
  3. Failure of internal investigations to examine medication monitoring
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.10

  1. Action

    Prepare guidance on using Section 2 versus Section 3 for inclusion in the Mental Health Policy.

    Stated by Birmingham City CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 6 March 2025.
  2. Action

    Recruit and train AMHPs to increase BCC staffing by 35 over five years.

    Stated by Birmingham City CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 6 March 2025.
  3. Action

    Implement an actions tracker to monitor agreed multidisciplinary team plans and follow-up.

    Stated by Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 6 March 2025.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.4

  1. Position

    Suggestions that incorrect Mental Health Act detentions are being made are fundamentally inaccurate because AMHPs, not doctors, make detention and section decisions.

    Stated by Birmingham City CouncilDisputes 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

Failure of internal investigations to verify relevant witness information and clinical address records

Wider context from the report

“1. Internal investigation: The internal investigation did not address how and whether the offender’s use of medication should have been monitored after the clinic visit on 12/05/23. This was important as non compliance with medication was a risk factor for relapse. In addition, during the inquest the trust confirmed they had not spoken to the CPN who attempted to visit the offender on 24/05/23 to verify whether they had attended the old or new address. This was a critical issue as the new address had not been updated on the clinical notes. This raises a concern about the quality of the investigation and whether the Trust is adequately learning from incidents. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety incident investigations; Unreliable gathering of witness evidence for formal investigations.

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 interagency information sharing with landlords

Wider context from the report

“3. Information sharing between agencies and support worker training: The inquest heard evidence that Landlords have to rely on the information given to them by the residents and do not have access to other key information held by other agencies. This means the landlord is often not aware of key information about an individual. Given the potential for harm for residents and support workers consideration needs to be given to how best to share information to ensure residents are receiving the right care and landlords have sufficient information to be able to monitor residents and undertake risk assessments. The inquest heard evidence that support workers need more focussed training on mental health conditions and how to manage and help residents with enduring mental health conditions. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable inter-agency information sharing for coordinated 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 of internal investigations to examine medication monitoring

Wider context from the report

“1. Internal investigation: The internal investigation did not address how and whether the offender’s use of medication should have been monitored after the clinic visit on 12/05/23. This was important as non compliance with medication was a risk factor for relapse. In addition, during the inquest the trust confirmed they had not spoken to the CPN who attempted to visit the offender on 24/05/23 to verify whether they had attended the old or new address. This was a critical issue as the new address had not been updated on the clinical notes. This raises a concern about the quality of the investigation and whether the Trust is adequately learning from incidents. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Barriers to accurate Mental Health Act section assessments

Wider context from the report

“2. Mental Health assessments: The inquest heard evidence that there were barriers to the use of S2 and S3 of the Mental health Act due to AMPH resistance, administrative challenges and resourcing. This raises a concern that incorrect MHA assessments are taking place and patients may be detained on an inappropriate section impacting patient care. A copy of a report prepared by ████████ is attached. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure timely and appropriate Mental Health Act assessment.

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 support worker training on enduring mental health conditions

Wider context from the report

“3. Information sharing between agencies and support worker training: The inquest heard evidence that Landlords have to rely on the information given to them by the residents and do not have access to other key information held by other agencies. This means the landlord is often not aware of key information about an individual. Given the potential for harm for residents and support workers consideration needs to be given to how best to share information to ensure residents are receiving the right care and landlords have sufficient information to be able to monitor residents and undertake risk assessments. The inquest heard evidence that support workers need more focussed training on mental health conditions and how to manage and help residents with enduring mental health conditions. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Prepare guidance on using Section 2 versus Section 3 for inclusion in the Mental Health Policy.

Verbatim wording from the response

“BCC has agreed to prepare a guidance statement to be added to the Mental Health Policy owned by Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health Foundation Trust regarding the use of Section 2 versus Section 3.”

Source location

Response from Birmingham City Council
Page 6 · response
Published 6 March 2025

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

Recruit and train AMHPs to increase BCC staffing by 35 over five years.

Verbatim wording from the response

“AMHP resourcing is an issue nationally with there being a shortage of AMHPs across the country. Latest figures suggest there are approximately 93,000 registered social workers with around 3000 AMHPs. BCC are actively recruiting and training AMHPs with a plan to increase numbers by 35 new AMHPs over the next 5 years. The number of AMHPs employed within BCC is not a barrier to the use of Section 2 or Section 3, it has no bearing on the use of sections under the Mental Health Act.”

Source location

Response from Birmingham City Council
Page 5 · response
Published 6 March 2025

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 an actions tracker to monitor agreed multidisciplinary team plans and follow-up.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The review acknowledged the risk of relapse identified in May 2023 on page 14, identifying that whilst plans were made within the Multi-disciplinary Team, there was no clear process to track these actions, leading to a lack of oversight. If there had been stronger oversight, the team would have been aware of the non-compliance with medication sooner, allowing for timely intervention. This would have included tracking the perpetrator’s prescription. To address this, the team has now implemented an actions tracker to ensure better oversight of agreed plans and follow up.”

Source location

Response from Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 6 March 2025

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

Train doctors and approved mental health professionals and incorporate the agreed joint guidance into Trust procedures.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Trust offers specific training to all trust section 12 approved doctors as part of their approved clinical reapproval training/ section 12 reapproval. This training is mandatory as part of the reapproval process and has been in place for the last 5 years. The Royal College of Psychiatrists offers this training to our Doctors. All doctors from the Trust on the section 12 rota and who participate in mental health act assessments for the Integrated Care Board are assured as section 12 approved. Once the joint guidance has been agreed, this will be used to train both doctors and AMHPs and be incorporated into our procedures.”

Source location

Response from Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 6 March 2025

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, approve and embed joint guidance for doctors and approved mental health professionals on appropriate Mental Health Act sections.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following the inquest our Associate Medical Director for Mental Health Legislation has been working with Birmingham City Council on a short joint guidance for the doctors and AMHPS which will be included in the Trust’s Mental Health Act Assessment policy. This is now a priority for the organisations and the aim is for this to be completed by the end of June. This guidance will progress through the relevant governance processes to ensure it is properly embedded in both organisations. The aim is that this will assist in ensuring that patients who are currently being admitted and need detention under the Mental Health Act are under a section that is most appropriate for them, in line with the code of practice. Assurance on appropriate use of the Mental Health Act is gained through the Trust Mental Health Act Committee and reported to Trust Board.”

Source location

Response from Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 6 March 2025

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

Remind clinical staff to record address and contact-number changes on the service-user demographic record in Rio.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have also written to all clinical staff to remind them that if they are notified of a change of address (or contact number) that this is recorded on the service user demographic information in Rio, the electronic patient record, which updates the “front page” and not just in the “progress notes”.”

Source location

Response from Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 6 March 2025

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 Meet and Greet workers in community mental health team receptions to verify demographic, contact and accommodation information.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The review also found the process for updating and tracking address changes was not robust enough. To strengthen this process as referenced in the report, the team has implemented a “meet and greet” role to improve the accuracy of address updates and ensure better coordination. I will go into more detail around this point under point three.”

Source location

Response from Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 6 March 2025

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

Continue strengthening joint procedures, information sharing and collaborative working with Birmingham City Council and supported housing providers.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We recognise the benefits of working in partnership with Birmingham City Council and Supported Housing Providers and will continue to commit to strengthening our joint procedures, relevant information sharing and enabling our professionals to work collectively at every opportunity.”

Source location

Response from Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 6 March 2025

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

Record community mental health medication supplies on EPMA and monitor compliance through monthly medication audits and governance reporting.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In relation to the prescription, where the Community Mental Health Team is supplying a service user with their medication, this is recorded on the Electronic Prescribing and Medicines Administration System (EPMA). The Trust outlined at the inquest how this system now has better functionality and this”

Source location

Response from Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 6 March 2025

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

Train doctors and approved mental health professionals through improved mental health assessment training delivered with Birmingham City Council.

Verbatim wording from the response

“At Inquest our witness gave evidence following the survey which had been carried out which identified that there were two areas where practice should be improved. These included:”

Source location

Response from Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 6 March 2025

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

Suggestions that incorrect Mental Health Act detentions are being made are fundamentally inaccurate because AMHPs, not doctors, make detention and section decisions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Decisions pertaining to whether an application is made to detain a citizen under the Mental Health Act 1983 are made solely by the AMHP and with two medical recommendations from Doctors, one of whom must be approved under Section 12 of the MHA 1983 and preferably, where one Doctor has knowledge of the patient. The actual decision as to whether the criteria for detention is met and whether detention should be made and under which Section, is for the AMHP to make. Therefore, the report and suggestions that the wrong detentions are being made, are fundamentally inaccurate, as it is not for the Doctor to decide which section or whether the patient is detained. They make a recommendation which the AMHP then uses to make their decision and the AMHP makes the application which is the formal detention.”

Source location

Response from Birmingham City Council
Page 5 · response
Published 6 March 2025

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

Landlords are responsible for providing appropriate training and ongoing development to their support workers.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The landlord should provide the appropriate training and ongoing development of their support workers, so that residents can be appropriately supported.”

Source location

Response from Birmingham City Council
Page 7 · response
Published 6 March 2025

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

AMHPs are responsible for deciding whether detention occurs and which Mental Health Act section applies, based on medical recommendations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Decisions pertaining to whether an application is made to detain a citizen under the Mental Health Act 1983 are made solely by the AMHP and with two medical recommendations from Doctors, one of whom must be approved under Section 12 of the MHA 1983 and preferably, where one Doctor has knowledge of the patient. The actual decision as to whether the criteria for detention is met and whether detention should be made and under which Section, is for the AMHP to make. Therefore, the report and suggestions that the wrong detentions are being made, are fundamentally inaccurate, as it is not for the Doctor to decide which section or whether the patient is detained. They make a recommendation which the AMHP then uses to make their decision and the AMHP makes the application which is the formal detention.”

Source location

Response from Birmingham City Council
Page 5 · response
Published 6 March 2025

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 referring agency is responsible for providing landlords with available resident information, largely based on the resident’s disclosures.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The responsibility for providing information to Landlords about residents depends on how the resident accesses the accommodation. If the provision is direct access, then the resident will provide details directly with no other agency involved. If an agency or Local Authority makes the referral, a referral form will be completed. The information that goes to the landlord is based on the referring agencies discussion with the resident. Often there is a need to provide proof of income, which the resident can do by logging on to their Universal Credit portal. Given the emergency nature of lots of these placements, it is likely that the referring agency has limited information to begin with. Referrals from prison, hospital or care facilities are an exception as the resident is likely to have known the agency for a longer period of time,”

Source location

Response from Birmingham City Council
Page 6 · response
Published 6 March 2025

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.4

  1. 1

    Review the Did Not Attend policy and avoid discharging patients solely because of lack of contact.

    Stated by Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 6 March 2025.
  2. 2

    Record home-visit non-contact attempts and escalate repeated unsuccessful contact to multidisciplinary review using the monitored action tracker.

    Stated by Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 6 March 2025.
  3. 3

    Review the standard operating procedure for non-contact with appointments to standardize escalation to the multidisciplinary team.

    Stated by Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 6 March 2025.
  4. 4

    Improve early identification of an admitting hospital and available bed through the Urgent and Emergency Care Pathway and Bed Strategy.

    Stated by Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 6 March 2025.

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

Review the Did Not Attend policy and avoid discharging patients solely because of lack of contact.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following the review into the deaths in Nottingham, the Trust has reviewed the Did Not Attend policy and does not discharge patients following a lack of contact and is in the positive position of having an Assertive Outreach Team where specifically experienced case managers actively engage in the care provided to high risk individuals in the community.”

Source location

Response from Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 6 March 2025

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

Record home-visit non-contact attempts and escalate repeated unsuccessful contact to multidisciplinary review using the monitored action tracker.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In relation to service users not being available when staff are visiting them at home. This is recorded in Rio following that visit, including; what attempts have been made to contact the service user and what the initial plan is in response to a lack of contact. Where there are repeated unsuccessful attempts, this is escalated to the MDT for discussion, review and a plan regarding the next steps. This is documented on the MDT action tracker, which is then monitored. The Trust will review the standard operating procedure for non-contact with appointments to ensure consistency in escalation to the MDT.”

Source location

Response from Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 6 March 2025

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

Review the standard operating procedure for non-contact with appointments to standardize escalation to the multidisciplinary team.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In relation to service users not being available when staff are visiting them at home. This is recorded in Rio following that visit, including; what attempts have been made to contact the service user and what the initial plan is in response to a lack of contact. Where there are repeated unsuccessful attempts, this is escalated to the MDT for discussion, review and a plan regarding the next steps. This is documented on the MDT action tracker, which is then monitored. The Trust will review the standard operating procedure for non-contact with appointments to ensure consistency in escalation to the MDT.”

Source location

Response from Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 6 March 2025

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

Improve early identification of an admitting hospital and available bed through the Urgent and Emergency Care Pathway and Bed Strategy.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Improve availability of identification of a named hospital which will admit / availability of beds. The Trust confirmed that actions on early identification of hospital with a bed which will admit the patient is challenging but work is ongoing though the Urgent and Emergency Care Pathway and Bed Strategy.”

Source location

Response from Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 6 March 2025

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
2/3

Data last updated 7 September 2026