PFD report

Daniel David Rennoldson · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 17 Jun 2021•Sunderland

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
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
3

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 raised2

  1. Failure to identify cases that have not been progressed
    Part of recurring concern: Failure of case monitoring to identify cases requiring follow-up
  2. Lack of contingency capacity for multiple simultaneous face-to-face responses
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.2

  1. Position

    Existing Crisis Team staffing, cross-cover and flexible deployment provide sufficient contingency to respond to multiple face-to-face assessments.

    Stated by Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation TrustExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

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 identify cases that have not been progressed

Wider context from the report

“2) almost 12 hours had elapsed from Daniel’s call to someone visiting his home address with no mechanism to identify cases, which had not been progressed. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure of case monitoring to identify cases requiring follow-up.

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 contingency capacity for multiple simultaneous face-to-face responses

Wider context from the report

“1) there appeared to be no contingency to deal with more than one face to face response at a time, leaving other callers potentially at risk; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Existing Crisis Team staffing, cross-cover and flexible deployment provide sufficient contingency to respond to multiple face-to-face assessments.

Verbatim wording from the response

“a. The Crisis service has the capacity to respond to more than one face to face assessment:”

Source location

2021-0206-Response-from-Cumbria-Northumberland-Tyne-and-Wear-NHS-Foundation-Trust-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 28 June 2021

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

Existing referral tracking, handover, electronic board and multidisciplinary review mechanisms are sufficient to identify outstanding Crisis Team assessments.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Trust can confirm that there are already robust mechanisms in place to track referrals active to the Crisis Team, including those still awaiting an assessment.”

Source location

2021-0206-Response-from-Cumbria-Northumberland-Tyne-and-Wear-NHS-Foundation-Trust-Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 28 June 2021

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.3

  1. 1

    Monitor Crisis Team response times weekly, investigate and address issues, and escalate breaches to monthly Trust-wide forums.

    Stated by Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 28 June 2021.
  2. 2

    Disseminate a reminder and flow chart on the cross-boundary agreement and discuss it in individual supervision.

    Stated by Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 28 June 2021.
  3. 3

    Review response times monthly against agreed standards.

    Stated by Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 28 June 2021.

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

  1. 1

    Emergency services, rather than Crisis Services, are the appropriate contingency when immediate risk requires an emergency response.

    Stated by Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation TrustRedirects 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

Monitor Crisis Team response times weekly, investigate and address issues, and escalate breaches to monthly Trust-wide forums.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Response times continue to be monitored within the team on a weekly basis and any issues explored and addressed. Any breaches in response times are escalated and discussed at monthly Trust wide forums.”

Source location

2021-0206-Response-from-Cumbria-Northumberland-Tyne-and-Wear-NHS-Foundation-Trust-Redacted
Page 4 · response
Published 28 June 2021

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

Disseminate a reminder and flow chart on the cross-boundary agreement and discuss it in individual supervision.

Verbatim wording from the response

“At 11:00hours it is acknowledged that Mr Reynoldson’s assessment was passed to another Crisis Team locality as they were considered more appropriate to undertake assessment and treatment. The Trust After Action Review acknowledged that there was learning to be undertaken in relation to patients who may cross two Crisis Team localities. On 9th June 2021 a reminder and flow chart outlining the long standing cross boundary agreement was sent to the team and discussed in individual supervision.”

Source location

2021-0206-Response-from-Cumbria-Northumberland-Tyne-and-Wear-NHS-Foundation-Trust-Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 28 June 2021

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 response times monthly against agreed standards.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Trust action plan, already shared with HM Senior Coroner, highlights that where an assessment is agreed and considered an emergency in line with the urgent and emergency response times, an assessment should be carried out within 4 hours. The action plan confirms”

Source location

2021-0206-Response-from-Cumbria-Northumberland-Tyne-and-Wear-NHS-Foundation-Trust-Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 28 June 2021

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

Emergency services, rather than Crisis Services, are the appropriate contingency when immediate risk requires an emergency response.

Verbatim wording from the response

“e. Nationally, Crisis Services are recommended to provide a 4 hour response and therefore do not provide an emergency response. In the event an immediate risk is identified, the emergency services would always be the most appropriate contingency to ensure patient safety.”

Source location

2021-0206-Response-from-Cumbria-Northumberland-Tyne-and-Wear-NHS-Foundation-Trust-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 28 June 2021

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