PFD report

CHRISTOPHER JONATHAN HIGGINS · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 24 Dec 2015•Norfolk

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
4

Named on the report

Responses found
3

Of 4 recipients

Stated actions
8

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 to risk assess and make safe the physical environment before patient access
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate safety controls for access ramps
  2. Failure of staff to understand required patient-observation practices
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable patient observation arrangements
  3. Lack of an agreed pathway for detained patients requiring assessment and treatment at A & E
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable emergency access to hospital carePart of recurring concern: Unsafe emergency-department crowding leaving patients without appropriate clinical space
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.8

  1. Action

    Implement and monitor an agreed acute-care pathway with clinician communication channels and a flowchart for detained mental-health patients requiring planned or emergency acute care.

    Stated by James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 24 December 2015.
  2. Action

    Complete development of a joint referral pathway enabling mental health inpatients to receive timely Emergency Department care through advance notification and agreed arrival times.

    Stated by the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King'S Lynn, NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 24 December 2015.
  3. Action

    Strengthen policy direction so staff accompany patients during transfers wherever possible, with safety-based decisions made with other involved services.

    Stated by Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 24 December 2015.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

  1. Position

    Mental health staff may be unable to accompany patient transfers in limited instances where safety makes accompaniment impossible.

    Stated by Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation TrustUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.

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 risk assess and make safe the physical environment before patient access

Wider context from the report

“(3) The safety of the environment where the incident took place, namely a disabled ramp with a railing along the edge and a concrete floor, had not been risk assessed prior to taking Mr Higgins outside for a cigarette. It is understood that since Mr Higgins' death the railing has been heightened. There was no evidence of a formal Risk Assessment having been undertaken since his death. Other ways of making the area safe are still under consideration. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety controls for access ramps.

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 staff to understand required patient-observation practices

Wider context from the report

“(1) It became clear during evidence, that members of staff are not aware of what is required of them when they carry out Observations on a patient. This was particularly evident with regard to Observations to be carried out on a "two members of staff to one patient" basis. Areas of confusion include how staff are to engage with a patient, how close they are required to be with regard to the patient, i.e. at arm's length or within eyesight and how to record the information gained from the Observation. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable patient observation arrangements.

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 an agreed pathway for detained patients requiring assessment and treatment at A & E

Wider context from the report

“(4) There is no agreement in place between the NSFT and the Acute Hospital as to the best way to deal with patients subject to detention under the Mental Health Act who require assessment and treatment at A & E, as a result of which Mr Higgins, was required to wait over 2 hours in a busy, public area, having already self-harmed and shown signs of paranoia. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable emergency access to hospital care; Unsafe emergency-department crowding leaving patients without appropriate clinical space.

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 record information gained from patient observations correctly

Wider context from the report

“(1) It became clear during evidence, that members of staff are not aware of what is required of them when they carry out Observations on a patient. This was particularly evident with regard to Observations to be carried out on a "two members of staff to one patient" basis. Areas of confusion include how staff are to engage with a patient, how close they are required to be with regard to the patient, i.e. at arm's length or within eyesight and how to record the information gained from the Observation. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable recording of required observations in care and custody.

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 escort policy and planning to address inter-service patient transfers

Wider context from the report

“(2) The Escort Policy does not include information relating to the transfer of patients from one place to another (in this case from an Acute Hospital to the Fermoy Unit) when other services are involved, for instance the Police. In particular, Mr Higgins who had been acting in an unpredictable, and paranoid manner, was put into a cage at the rear of the Police van with three Police Officers, with no Mental Health staff to accompany him. The evidence did not reveal that this had been considered by the Mental Health staff previously attending to Mr Higgins; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable transfer arrangements for at-risk mental health patients; Unsafe coordination and continuity during mental health service transfers.

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

Implement and monitor an agreed acute-care pathway with clinician communication channels and a flowchart for detained mental-health patients requiring planned or emergency acute care.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have considered the issues you raised in your report and we have worked with colleagues at Norfolk and Suffolk Mental Health Trust to develop a process for ensuring that patients under the care of mental health services who require acute care, either planned or as an emergency, have a clear pathway which includes agreed communication channels between clinicians, to expedite that care and reduce any potential for distress. Together we have developed a flow-chart to describe this process which is being used with immediate effect. I have attached a copy of this flow-chart for your information. We will monitor adherence to this new agreed process via the regular operational liaison meetings between our two trusts.”

Source location

2015-0480-Response-by-James-Paget-University-Hospitals-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 24 December 2015

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

Complete development of a joint referral pathway enabling mental health inpatients to receive timely Emergency Department care through advance notification and agreed arrival times.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I am writing to apologise that you did not receive a response to the Regulation 28 report following the death of Mr Christopher Higgins within the timeframe set out in your letter of the 24 December 2015. We have been working closely with Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust to develop a referral pathway which will ensure in the future that inpatients from our local mental health facility can access care and treatment in the Emergency Department in a timely manner that limits stress to the individual concerned.”

Source location

2015-0480-Response-by-Queen-Elizabeth-Hospital-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 24 December 2015

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

Strengthen policy direction so staff accompany patients during transfers wherever possible, with safety-based decisions made with other involved services.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Your report reflected the fact that Mr Higgins was transferred in the Police van back to the Fermoy Unit without a member of mental health staff present. Accepting that in Mr Higgins’s case the travel time and distance was small (within the site), the Trust acknowledges how important this can be for the patient. Therefore the Trust will be strengthening its policy direction (the policy is further”

Source location

2015-0480-Response-by-Norfolk-and-Suffolk-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 24 December 2015

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 local protocols with acute-hospital colleagues for timely, least-distressing assessment of patients with mental health needs and incorporate them into policy.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In addition to writing to the Trust, you have communicated with the local acute hospitals in Norfolk with the intention of raising to both services the consideration of how patients with mental health needs are cared for in a timely and least distressing way.”

Source location

2015-0480-Response-by-Norfolk-and-Suffolk-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 24 December 2015

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

Communicate updated observation requirements through staff emails, the Patient Safety Newsletter, and governance and leadership forums.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Amending policy is one action, which must be followed by communication to ensure its adoption by all staff. The Trust uses a range of communications including updates by email, within a Patient Safety Newsletter and discussion at governance and leadership forums. Through this range of means, staff are updated of the requirement to adapt practice.”

Source location

2015-0480-Response-by-Norfolk-and-Suffolk-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 24 December 2015

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

Fully enclose the ramp to remove the possibility of an individual jumping from its top area.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following the inquest the Trust has revisited the assessment of this area. Whilst there are mitigations in place such as the heightened rail and access to the area by patients is made with supervision, the Trust has decided to fully enclose the ramp. This work has commenced and is proposed to be completed by the end of March 2016 and removes the possibility of an individual jumping from the top of the ramp area.”

Source location

2015-0480-Response-by-Norfolk-and-Suffolk-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 24 December 2015

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

Add additional height bars to the disabled-access ramp railing to reduce the likelihood of people jumping over it.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following the incident the Trust reviewed the railing that sits with the disabled access ramp, adding additional height bars to reduce the likelihood that an individual could, from a standing position, jump over the top of them.”

Source location

2015-0480-Response-by-Norfolk-and-Suffolk-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 24 December 2015

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 and update the Observation and Engagement of Service Users policy to clarify additional-observation requirements.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Your report identified that during the inquest staff reported areas of confusion regarding the action of additional observations. The staff conveyed a lack of clarity regarding aspects such as arm’s length or within eyesight. Following the inquest the Trust’s Observation and Engagement of Service Users policy has been reviewed and updated to reflect the need for clarity in applying the observations as intended. I enclose a copy of the policy.”

Source location

2015-0480-Response-by-Norfolk-and-Suffolk-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 24 December 2015

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

Mental health staff may be unable to accompany patient transfers in limited instances where safety makes accompaniment impossible.

Verbatim wording from the response

“referenced below) that staff should wherever possible, accompany the patient during the transfer. There may be some limited instances where this is not possible on the grounds of safety but decisions would be made in liaison with other service involved.”

Source location

2015-0480-Response-by-Norfolk-and-Suffolk-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 24 December 2015

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
3/4

Data last updated 7 September 2026