PFD report

Alice Anne McMeekin · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 4 Jun 2015•Cumbria

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 obtain and verify critical information about reported threats
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to obtain critical information during initial police incident responses
  2. Discharge without timely and adequate follow-up care for a person remaining at risk
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to provide timely and adequate follow-up after dischargePart of recurring concern: Failure to provide timely continuing mental health reviews and follow-upPart of recurring concern: Failure to reliably follow up identified mental-health safety concernsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable interim mental health support during care transitionsPart of recurring concern: Unsafe discharge, closure or withdrawal of mental health services
  3. Failure to communicate significant risk information to ambulance and psychiatric staff
    Part of recurring concern: Ineffective communication during medical emergenciesPart of recurring concern: Unreliable inter-agency information sharing for coordinated carePart of recurring concern: Unreliable sharing of safety-critical risk information between police, healthcare and probation services
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 obtain and verify critical information about reported threats

Wider context from the report

“1.The Police The evidence revealed that on the 6th June 2013 the perpetrator made remarks to a member of the public to the effect that he “would not kill his mother”. This information was passed to the Officers who attended the area. Some 2 hours later the same officers attended a call about a man behaving strangely and covered in blood. An ambulance was called. The officers had not spoken to the original caller, who subsequently gave evidence that the remarks were that the perpetrator said he “would kill his mother”. “Common sense” told the officers that the person was one and the same and they did a welfare check on his mother. At no stage did they question the perpetrator about his originally reported remarks. Also, citing confidentiality they did not pass those remarks onto the Ambulance Team. This meant that when later seen by psychiatric nurse the latter was in ignorance of this significant statement. It is possible that had the nurse been aware this may have altered the outcome of the perpetrator’s initial assessment and how he was dealt with. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to obtain critical information during initial police incident responses.

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

Discharge without timely and adequate follow-up care for a person remaining at risk

Wider context from the report

“2.The Partnership Trust The Coroner concluded that the evidence at the inquest showed that the perpetrator was suffering from a mental disorder when he tried to kill himself on the 6th June 2013. Whilst the psychiatric nurse that day did not have all the information which was available at the inquest he had information to show that perpetrator had a history of self-harm, unemployment, family stressors, multiple and complex drug misuse, quasi-incestuous sexual feelings, past sex abuse, hopelessness, low mood and serious suicide attempt that day. 3.Not withstanding the above the nurse decided that the perpetrator was of zero risk and was not suffering from a mental disorder. He was discharged with the only potential follow up being talking therapy which would not commence, if it ever did, some weeks hence. The evidence at inquest shows that this was a very disturbed young man having intended to kill himself 6 hours earlier and who remained a risk to himself. Whilst the information known to the nurse at the time the tragic outcome could not have been anticipated, there was an opportunity to render care, which could, as a consequence have made a difference. It is a concern that the two assessments after the killings also concluded the perpetrator was not suffering from a mental disorder. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to provide timely and adequate follow-up after discharge; Failure to provide timely continuing mental health reviews and follow-up; Failure to reliably follow up identified mental-health safety concerns; Unreliable interim mental health support during care transitions; Unsafe discharge, closure or withdrawal of mental health services.

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 significant risk information to ambulance and psychiatric staff

Wider context from the report

“1.The Police The evidence revealed that on the 6th June 2013 the perpetrator made remarks to a member of the public to the effect that he “would not kill his mother”. This information was passed to the Officers who attended the area. Some 2 hours later the same officers attended a call about a man behaving strangely and covered in blood. An ambulance was called. The officers had not spoken to the original caller, who subsequently gave evidence that the remarks were that the perpetrator said he “would kill his mother”. “Common sense” told the officers that the person was one and the same and they did a welfare check on his mother. At no stage did they question the perpetrator about his originally reported remarks. Also, citing confidentiality they did not pass those remarks onto the Ambulance Team. This meant that when later seen by psychiatric nurse the latter was in ignorance of this significant statement. It is possible that had the nurse been aware this may have altered the outcome of the perpetrator’s initial assessment and how he was dealt with. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Ineffective communication during medical emergencies; Unreliable inter-agency information sharing for coordinated care; Unreliable sharing of safety-critical risk information between police, healthcare and probation services.

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 psychiatric assessments to recognise mental disorder and suicide risk

Wider context from the report

“2.The Partnership Trust The Coroner concluded that the evidence at the inquest showed that the perpetrator was suffering from a mental disorder when he tried to kill himself on the 6th June 2013. Whilst the psychiatric nurse that day did not have all the information which was available at the inquest he had information to show that perpetrator had a history of self-harm, unemployment, family stressors, multiple and complex drug misuse, quasi-incestuous sexual feelings, past sex abuse, hopelessness, low mood and serious suicide attempt that day. 3.Not withstanding the above the nurse decided that the perpetrator was of zero risk and was not suffering from a mental disorder. He was discharged with the only potential follow up being talking therapy which would not commence, if it ever did, some weeks hence. The evidence at inquest shows that this was a very disturbed young man having intended to kill himself 6 hours earlier and who remained a risk to himself. Whilst the information known to the nurse at the time the tragic outcome could not have been anticipated, there was an opportunity to render care, which could, as a consequence have made a difference. It is a concern that the two assessments after the killings also concluded the perpetrator was not suffering from a mental disorder. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to recognise and respond to deteriorating mental health in service users; Inadequate mental health risk assessment; Unreliable assessment of patients’ mental state.

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.