PFD report

Loraine Michelle CHEESMAN · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 3 Apr 2025•County Durham and Darlington

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
1

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 raised2

  1. Lack of guidance for assessing when external intervention can be triggered
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable adult safeguarding threshold assessment and response
  2. Failure of mental capacity assessment guidance to recognise Executive Dysfunction
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to recognise impaired decision-making capacity in care decisionsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable assessment and recording of patients’ mental capacity
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

Lack of guidance for assessing when external intervention can be triggered

Wider context from the report

“Department of Health and Social Care (2023), Care and Support Statutory Guidance, Section 14.17 states in relation to Self Neglect and Hoarding Disorder: “‘This covers a wide range of behaviour neglecting to care of one’s personal hygiene, health or surroundings and includes behaviour such as hoarding. It should be noted that self-neglect may not prompt a section 42 enquiry. An assessment should be made on a case by case basis. A decision on whether a response is required under safeguarding will depend on the adult’s ability to protect themselves by controlling their own behaviour. There may come a point when they are no longer able to do this, without external support.” During the course of the evidence I heard from social workers and safeguarding professionals than in relation to assessing whether “the point” had been reached in relation to an adult suffering from Hoarding Disorder and Executive Dysfunction there was no specific guidance and that such guidance would in future be welcome. Currently they are constrained by existing guidance for assessing mental capacity, which does not directly recognise Executive Dysfunction, or for assessing whether the adult’s behaviour constitutes a potentially chargeable criminal or regulatory offence, for example in relation to public nuisance, health hazard, or anti social behaviour, rather than the root cause of the behaviour - a mental disorder or disorders. So, the matter of concern consists of this request - for guidance to be provided as to how to incorporate consideration of Executive Dysfunction into the assessment of mental capacity and how to assess when the point when external intervention can be triggered has been reached. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable adult safeguarding threshold assessment and response.

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 mental capacity assessment guidance to recognise Executive Dysfunction

Wider context from the report

“Department of Health and Social Care (2023), Care and Support Statutory Guidance, Section 14.17 states in relation to Self Neglect and Hoarding Disorder: “‘This covers a wide range of behaviour neglecting to care of one’s personal hygiene, health or surroundings and includes behaviour such as hoarding. It should be noted that self-neglect may not prompt a section 42 enquiry. An assessment should be made on a case by case basis. A decision on whether a response is required under safeguarding will depend on the adult’s ability to protect themselves by controlling their own behaviour. There may come a point when they are no longer able to do this, without external support.” During the course of the evidence I heard from social workers and safeguarding professionals than in relation to assessing whether “the point” had been reached in relation to an adult suffering from Hoarding Disorder and Executive Dysfunction there was no specific guidance and that such guidance would in future be welcome. Currently they are constrained by existing guidance for assessing mental capacity, which does not directly recognise Executive Dysfunction, or for assessing whether the adult’s behaviour constitutes a potentially chargeable criminal or regulatory offence, for example in relation to public nuisance, health hazard, or anti social behaviour, rather than the root cause of the behaviour - a mental disorder or disorders. So, the matter of concern consists of this request - for guidance to be provided as to how to incorporate consideration of Executive Dysfunction into the assessment of mental capacity and how to assess when the point when external intervention can be triggered has been reached. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to recognise impaired decision-making capacity in care decisions; Unreliable assessment and recording of patients’ mental capacity.

Open source report

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.1

  1. 1

    Continue disseminating relevant guidance and Court of Protection case law through partners and professional networks.

    Stated by Department of Health and Social CareStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 15 April 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

Continue disseminating relevant guidance and Court of Protection case law through partners and professional networks.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Department will continue to disseminate such guidance and caselaw through its partners and networks.”

Source location

Response from DHSC
Page 2 · response
Published 15 April 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
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026