PFD report

Grant Lincoln RICHARDS · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 23 Mar 2017•East London

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
1

Named on the report

Responses found
0

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
0

Described in responses

Recipients and published 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 record relevant A&E attendance and discharge information in GP reports
  2. Failure to maintain contingency and audit controls for missed follow-up actions
    Part of recurring concern: Failure of case monitoring to identify cases requiring follow-up
  3. Failure to act on requested clinical follow-up
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to ensure clinical investigation results are reliably available, interpreted and acted upon
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 record relevant A&E attendance and discharge information in GP reports

Wider context from the report

“Mr Richards previous medical history included diagnoses of depression, and anxiety, for which he was treated at various times pharmacologically, by inpatient treatment in a secure hospital, by access to the Home Treatment Team and by community based mental health care. His history included self-harm and suicide attempt. His anxieties included financial worry, debt, unemployment and eviction. He attended A&E at Whipps Cross Hospital on 23rd July 2016 for treatment of pain in his right loin. Whilst there he was x-rayed to the chest, which revealed a “shadow” on the right side. The hospital advised Mr Richards and his sister who attended with him that this matter would be raised with the GP, and he was informed that the hospital recommended follow-up in the chest clinic. The discharge summary recorded “disch for GP F/Up – to check progress” and also specifically noted the clinician’s comments which included “please arrange F/U in the chest clinic”. A letter was given to the patient as well as emailed to the GP surgery. The initial GP evidential witness report to the Coroner, prepared for submission to the Inquest, made no mention of this event. I heard evidence that the usual surgery protocol was that a reviewing doctor would assess all emailed reports received into the surgery, and in a case like this would instruct the surgery receptionist to contact the patient to arrange an appointment for such follow-up to be actioned. The evidence was that this did not happen. There was no follow-up. When Mr Richards was next seen in surgery on 5th October 2016, the x-rays were not discussed and there was no discussion of the requested follow-up with either the doctor, Mr Richards or his sister. The evidence was that Mr Richards was thought to be alarmed at the prospect that he might have lung cancer, from which his mother had died, and it was possible that this anxiety played a part in the prolongation or exacerbation of his depression leading to his suicide. Additionally, evidence was given that in the course of a Root Cause Serious Incident Investigation conducted by an independent panel at the behest of the mental health authority (North East London Foundation Trust) that documents were sent electronically by fax from agencies of the Trust, especially the home treatment team and/or the Redbridge Access and Assessment Brief Intervention Team, which the GP surgery did not act upon although the Trust had received successful transmission reports generated by the fax machine. The features of: a) failure to act upon the request in the A&E discharge summary; b) failure to have a contingency system or audit in place to ensure that such failures are not missed; c) failure to include reference to the attendance at A&E and the discharge summary generated as a result of it, in the GP evidential report; d) and failure to act on fax documents sent to the surgery, all indicate a want of management control, lack of suitable procedures in place and a poor attention to documents received. ”

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

Failure to maintain contingency and audit controls for missed follow-up actions

Wider context from the report

“Mr Richards previous medical history included diagnoses of depression, and anxiety, for which he was treated at various times pharmacologically, by inpatient treatment in a secure hospital, by access to the Home Treatment Team and by community based mental health care. His history included self-harm and suicide attempt. His anxieties included financial worry, debt, unemployment and eviction. He attended A&E at Whipps Cross Hospital on 23rd July 2016 for treatment of pain in his right loin. Whilst there he was x-rayed to the chest, which revealed a “shadow” on the right side. The hospital advised Mr Richards and his sister who attended with him that this matter would be raised with the GP, and he was informed that the hospital recommended follow-up in the chest clinic. The discharge summary recorded “disch for GP F/Up – to check progress” and also specifically noted the clinician’s comments which included “please arrange F/U in the chest clinic”. A letter was given to the patient as well as emailed to the GP surgery. The initial GP evidential witness report to the Coroner, prepared for submission to the Inquest, made no mention of this event. I heard evidence that the usual surgery protocol was that a reviewing doctor would assess all emailed reports received into the surgery, and in a case like this would instruct the surgery receptionist to contact the patient to arrange an appointment for such follow-up to be actioned. The evidence was that this did not happen. There was no follow-up. When Mr Richards was next seen in surgery on 5th October 2016, the x-rays were not discussed and there was no discussion of the requested follow-up with either the doctor, Mr Richards or his sister. The evidence was that Mr Richards was thought to be alarmed at the prospect that he might have lung cancer, from which his mother had died, and it was possible that this anxiety played a part in the prolongation or exacerbation of his depression leading to his suicide. Additionally, evidence was given that in the course of a Root Cause Serious Incident Investigation conducted by an independent panel at the behest of the mental health authority (North East London Foundation Trust) that documents were sent electronically by fax from agencies of the Trust, especially the home treatment team and/or the Redbridge Access and Assessment Brief Intervention Team, which the GP surgery did not act upon although the Trust had received successful transmission reports generated by the fax machine. The features of: a) failure to act upon the request in the A&E discharge summary; b) failure to have a contingency system or audit in place to ensure that such failures are not missed; c) failure to include reference to the attendance at A&E and the discharge summary generated as a result of it, in the GP evidential report; d) and failure to act on fax documents sent to the surgery, all indicate a want of management control, lack of suitable procedures in place and a poor attention to documents received. ”

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

Failure to act on requested clinical follow-up

Wider context from the report

“Mr Richards previous medical history included diagnoses of depression, and anxiety, for which he was treated at various times pharmacologically, by inpatient treatment in a secure hospital, by access to the Home Treatment Team and by community based mental health care. His history included self-harm and suicide attempt. His anxieties included financial worry, debt, unemployment and eviction. He attended A&E at Whipps Cross Hospital on 23rd July 2016 for treatment of pain in his right loin. Whilst there he was x-rayed to the chest, which revealed a “shadow” on the right side. The hospital advised Mr Richards and his sister who attended with him that this matter would be raised with the GP, and he was informed that the hospital recommended follow-up in the chest clinic. The discharge summary recorded “disch for GP F/Up – to check progress” and also specifically noted the clinician’s comments which included “please arrange F/U in the chest clinic”. A letter was given to the patient as well as emailed to the GP surgery. The initial GP evidential witness report to the Coroner, prepared for submission to the Inquest, made no mention of this event. I heard evidence that the usual surgery protocol was that a reviewing doctor would assess all emailed reports received into the surgery, and in a case like this would instruct the surgery receptionist to contact the patient to arrange an appointment for such follow-up to be actioned. The evidence was that this did not happen. There was no follow-up. When Mr Richards was next seen in surgery on 5th October 2016, the x-rays were not discussed and there was no discussion of the requested follow-up with either the doctor, Mr Richards or his sister. The evidence was that Mr Richards was thought to be alarmed at the prospect that he might have lung cancer, from which his mother had died, and it was possible that this anxiety played a part in the prolongation or exacerbation of his depression leading to his suicide. Additionally, evidence was given that in the course of a Root Cause Serious Incident Investigation conducted by an independent panel at the behest of the mental health authority (North East London Foundation Trust) that documents were sent electronically by fax from agencies of the Trust, especially the home treatment team and/or the Redbridge Access and Assessment Brief Intervention Team, which the GP surgery did not act upon although the Trust had received successful transmission reports generated by the fax machine. The features of: a) failure to act upon the request in the A&E discharge summary; b) failure to have a contingency system or audit in place to ensure that such failures are not missed; c) failure to include reference to the attendance at A&E and the discharge summary generated as a result of it, in the GP evidential report; d) and failure to act on fax documents sent to the surgery, all indicate a want of management control, lack of suitable procedures in place and a poor attention to documents received. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure clinical investigation results are reliably available, interpreted and acted upon.

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 act on faxed clinical documents

Wider context from the report

“Mr Richards previous medical history included diagnoses of depression, and anxiety, for which he was treated at various times pharmacologically, by inpatient treatment in a secure hospital, by access to the Home Treatment Team and by community based mental health care. His history included self-harm and suicide attempt. His anxieties included financial worry, debt, unemployment and eviction. He attended A&E at Whipps Cross Hospital on 23rd July 2016 for treatment of pain in his right loin. Whilst there he was x-rayed to the chest, which revealed a “shadow” on the right side. The hospital advised Mr Richards and his sister who attended with him that this matter would be raised with the GP, and he was informed that the hospital recommended follow-up in the chest clinic. The discharge summary recorded “disch for GP F/Up – to check progress” and also specifically noted the clinician’s comments which included “please arrange F/U in the chest clinic”. A letter was given to the patient as well as emailed to the GP surgery. The initial GP evidential witness report to the Coroner, prepared for submission to the Inquest, made no mention of this event. I heard evidence that the usual surgery protocol was that a reviewing doctor would assess all emailed reports received into the surgery, and in a case like this would instruct the surgery receptionist to contact the patient to arrange an appointment for such follow-up to be actioned. The evidence was that this did not happen. There was no follow-up. When Mr Richards was next seen in surgery on 5th October 2016, the x-rays were not discussed and there was no discussion of the requested follow-up with either the doctor, Mr Richards or his sister. The evidence was that Mr Richards was thought to be alarmed at the prospect that he might have lung cancer, from which his mother had died, and it was possible that this anxiety played a part in the prolongation or exacerbation of his depression leading to his suicide. Additionally, evidence was given that in the course of a Root Cause Serious Incident Investigation conducted by an independent panel at the behest of the mental health authority (North East London Foundation Trust) that documents were sent electronically by fax from agencies of the Trust, especially the home treatment team and/or the Redbridge Access and Assessment Brief Intervention Team, which the GP surgery did not act upon although the Trust had received successful transmission reports generated by the fax machine. The features of: a) failure to act upon the request in the A&E discharge summary; b) failure to have a contingency system or audit in place to ensure that such failures are not missed; c) failure to include reference to the attendance at A&E and the discharge summary generated as a result of it, in the GP evidential report; d) and failure to act on fax documents sent to the surgery, all indicate a want of management control, lack of suitable procedures in place and a poor attention to documents received. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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
0/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026

No official response is included in the current published snapshot.