PFD report

Mr Jason Lennon · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 15 Feb 2022•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
8

Raised in this report

Recipients
3

Named on the report

Responses found
0

Of 3 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 raised8

  1. Failure to effectively review medical records before assessment
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to review relevant clinical records before care decisions
  2. CRT staff performance falling below regulator standards
  3. Failure to adequately document important information arising from assessment
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 effectively review medical records before assessment

Wider context from the report

“2. The CRT undertook a flawed review of Mr Lennon’s mental state on 29/7/19 which failed to assess that, Jason was in relapse and was a risk of harm to himself and others. Factors which contributed to this failure included; a. CRT staff did not effectively review medical records prior to assessing Jason, b. The CRT did not communicate important clinical information between themselves and external stakeholders. c. The CRT did not adequately document important information arising from the assessment. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to review relevant clinical records before care decisions.

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

CRT staff performance falling below regulator standards

Wider context from the report

“4. Accepted individual failings by staff within the CRT fall below standards set by their regulator. There is no evidence before the court to assess whether ELFT have considered the necessity to make a referral to a regulator. ”

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 adequately document important information arising from assessment

Wider context from the report

“2. The CRT undertook a flawed review of Mr Lennon’s mental state on 29/7/19 which failed to assess that, Jason was in relapse and was a risk of harm to himself and others. Factors which contributed to this failure included; a. CRT staff did not effectively review medical records prior to assessing Jason, b. The CRT did not communicate important clinical information between themselves and external stakeholders. c. The CRT did not adequately document important information arising from the assessment. ”

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 monitor whether patients are on care pathways appropriate to their needs

Wider context from the report

“1. Expert psychiatric evidence indicated that Mr Lennon was a suitable candidate for the Care Programme Approach mental health pathway and that the use of this pathway would have reduced the risk of an acute deterioration in his mental state. The CRT failed to effectively monitor whether Mr Lennon was on a care pathway appropriate to his needs. ”

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 of governance processes to complete serious incident investigation action plans

Wider context from the report

“3. The Trust undertook a serious incident investigation report into the events leading to Mr Lennon’s death in November 2019 which made a series of recommendations for action. The action plan was found to have been incomplete by 6/2/22 due to errors attributable to the Trust’s governance team. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to implement identified safety actions.

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 evidence consideration of necessary referrals to a regulator

Wider context from the report

“4. Accepted individual failings by staff within the CRT fall below standards set by their regulator. There is no evidence before the court to assess whether ELFT have considered the necessity to make a referral to a regulator. ”

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 communicate important clinical information between CRT staff and external stakeholders

Wider context from the report

“2. The CRT undertook a flawed review of Mr Lennon’s mental state on 29/7/19 which failed to assess that, Jason was in relapse and was a risk of harm to himself and others. Factors which contributed to this failure included; a. CRT staff did not effectively review medical records prior to assessing Jason, b. The CRT did not communicate important clinical information between themselves and external stakeholders. c. The CRT did not adequately document important information arising from the assessment. ”

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 assess mental state, relapse and risk of harm

Wider context from the report

“2. The CRT undertook a flawed review of Mr Lennon’s mental state on 29/7/19 which failed to assess that, Jason was in relapse and was a risk of harm to himself and others. Factors which contributed to this failure included; a. CRT staff did not effectively review medical records prior to assessing Jason, b. The CRT did not communicate important clinical information between themselves and external stakeholders. c. The CRT did not adequately document important information arising from the assessment. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — 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
0/3

Data last updated 7 September 2026

No official response is included in the current published snapshot.