PFD report

Igor Kacper SZALAPSKI · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 13 Nov 2023•Inner North 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
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
12

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 raised8

  1. Failure to re-contact the crisis team after a concerning change in a resident’s condition
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable crisis-team access and communication
  2. Lack of policy on when to increase welfare checks
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable escalation policy for care concernsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable welfare-check processes for people whose health is of concern
  3. Failure to undertake welfare checks at least once per shift
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.7

  1. Action

    Implement organisational policies and procedures at the London Youth Hub in place of local Covid-hotel procedures.

    Stated by Depaul UKStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 21 November 2023.
  2. Action

    Strengthen London Youth Hub management by appointing experienced service managers and placing the service under an experienced Area Director of Housing and Support.

    Stated by Depaul UKStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 21 November 2023.
  3. Action

    Provide structured support sessions for London Youth Hub clients.

    Stated by Depaul UKStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 21 November 2023.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.4

  1. Position

    Relevant safeguarding referrals were for medical professionals to make; limited intervention was possible because the service was not a care provider.

    Stated by Depaul UKRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking 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 re-contact the crisis team after a concerning change in a resident’s condition

Wider context from the report

“1. On 14 April 2023, staff found Igor outside, drowsy and incoherent, cold and wet, but did not re-contact the crisis team. 2. Igor was a vulnerable young man, recently homeless, but the last time that any member of staff had a meaningful conversation with him was on 20 April 2023, ten days before he died. 3. The Depaul executive director of services recognised at inquest that there should have been more staff conversation with Igor throughout his time at the London Youth Hub. 4. She also acknowledged that greater attempts should have been made by staff to engage with partner agencies regarding Igor’s care and welfare. 5. Igor was only 18 years old and his father did visit him, but the hostel did not have any contact details for his family. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable crisis-team access and communication.

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 policy on when to increase welfare checks

Wider context from the report

“However, I have read the report since. It went into some detail and identified that, when Igor was found at 6.25pm, no staff member had undertaken a welfare check of him since half past midnight, whereas there should have been at least one per shift. I was told at inquest that staff were disciplined about this after Igor’s death. At the time of Igor’s death, there was no national policy on when to increase welfare checks. I was told that there is now national guidance. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable escalation policy for care concerns; Unreliable welfare-check processes for people whose health is of concern.

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 undertake welfare checks at least once per shift

Wider context from the report

“However, I have read the report since. It went into some detail and identified that, when Igor was found at 6.25pm, no staff member had undertaken a welfare check of him since half past midnight, whereas there should have been at least one per shift. I was told at inquest that staff were disciplined about this after Igor’s death. At the time of Igor’s death, there was no national policy on when to increase welfare checks. I was told that there is now national guidance. ”

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

Chaotic culture at the London Youth Hub

Wider context from the report

“The Depaul investigation also identified that staff at the London Youth Hub had not attended self harm and suicide awareness training. I heard that training has now increased and is mandatory. The report described the culture at the London Youth Hub as chaotic. ”

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

Insufficient staff conversations with vulnerable residents

Wider context from the report

“1. On 14 April 2023, staff found Igor outside, drowsy and incoherent, cold and wet, but did not re-contact the crisis team. 2. Igor was a vulnerable young man, recently homeless, but the last time that any member of staff had a meaningful conversation with him was on 20 April 2023, ten days before he died. 3. The Depaul executive director of services recognised at inquest that there should have been more staff conversation with Igor throughout his time at the London Youth Hub. 4. She also acknowledged that greater attempts should have been made by staff to engage with partner agencies regarding Igor’s care and welfare. 5. Igor was only 18 years old and his father did visit him, but the hostel did not have any contact details for his family. ”

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 engage sufficiently with partner agencies regarding residents’ care and welfare

Wider context from the report

“1. On 14 April 2023, staff found Igor outside, drowsy and incoherent, cold and wet, but did not re-contact the crisis team. 2. Igor was a vulnerable young man, recently homeless, but the last time that any member of staff had a meaningful conversation with him was on 20 April 2023, ten days before he died. 3. The Depaul executive director of services recognised at inquest that there should have been more staff conversation with Igor throughout his time at the London Youth Hub. 4. She also acknowledged that greater attempts should have been made by staff to engage with partner agencies regarding Igor’s care and welfare. 5. Igor was only 18 years old and his father did visit him, but the hostel did not have any contact details for his family. ”

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 London Youth Hub staff to attend self-harm and suicide awareness training

Wider context from the report

“The Depaul investigation also identified that staff at the London Youth Hub had not attended self harm and suicide awareness training. I heard that training has now increased and is mandatory. The report described the culture at the London Youth Hub as chaotic. ”

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

Lack of family contact details for young residents

Wider context from the report

“1. On 14 April 2023, staff found Igor outside, drowsy and incoherent, cold and wet, but did not re-contact the crisis team. 2. Igor was a vulnerable young man, recently homeless, but the last time that any member of staff had a meaningful conversation with him was on 20 April 2023, ten days before he died. 3. The Depaul executive director of services recognised at inquest that there should have been more staff conversation with Igor throughout his time at the London Youth Hub. 4. She also acknowledged that greater attempts should have been made by staff to engage with partner agencies regarding Igor’s care and welfare. 5. Igor was only 18 years old and his father did visit him, but the hostel did not have any contact details for his family. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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 organisational policies and procedures at the London Youth Hub in place of local Covid-hotel procedures.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following this incident, DePaul took quick action to address the concerns regarding the ‘chaotic’ feel of the service. This included:”

Source location

Response from DePaul
Page 17 · response
Published 21 November 2023

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 London Youth Hub management by appointing experienced service managers and placing the service under an experienced Area Director of Housing and Support.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following this incident, DePaul took quick action to address the concerns regarding the ‘chaotic’ feel of the service. This included:”

Source location

Response from DePaul
Page 17 · response
Published 21 November 2023

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

Provide structured support sessions for London Youth Hub clients.

Verbatim wording from the response

“days, during which time the clients will ‘receive personalised, holistic support from the delivery partners DePaul UK and New Horizon Youth Centre’. It is not supported accommodation and therefore does not specify the frequency of support sessions to clients, recognising the short-term nature of their stay, and the focus of the provision on moving them on to longer term accommodation. There is the expectation however of general, broader support in place for clients from partner agencies and statutory services. During the transition from emergency hotel provision, as the client’s needs (higher risk referrals than expected) and length of stay have evolved, DePaul recognise that regular structured support sessions were beneficial for clients and staff – rather than more informal support-based interactions.”

Source location

Response from DePaul
Page 11 · response
Published 21 November 2023

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

Deliver self-harm and suicidal-ideation training to staff.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3.2.8 Concern 8: “The Depaul investigation also identified that staff at the London Youth Hub had not attended self-harm and suicide awareness training. I heard that training has now increased and is mandatory. The report described the culture at the London Youth Hub as chaotic.””

Source location

Response from DePaul
Page 16 · response
Published 21 November 2023

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

Implement an organisational welfare-check procedure defining routine and increased checks, authorisation, duration and recording requirements.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3.2.7 Concern 7: “At the time of Igor’s death, there was no national policy on when to increase welfare checks. I was told that there is now national guidance.””

Source location

Response from DePaul
Page 16 · response
Published 21 November 2023

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

Lead an internal investigation into missed welfare checks and take resulting employment action.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following the immediate aftermath of the incident, DePaul learned that Mr Szalapski had not been seen for 18 hours. They would have expected staff to check on him on every shift as a minimum. Furthermore, they learned a local management decision had been made to complete these checks more frequently due to his deteriorating mental health. However, staff on shift reported different understanding of this, and routine or increased checks were either not actioned or not recorded. DePaul immediately led an internal investigation with the staff on shift at the time, and as a result of that investigation, two staff members failed their probation and are no longer employed by DePaul UK.”

Source location

Response from DePaul
Page 15 · response
Published 21 November 2023

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

Deploy experienced permanent and agency staff from other services to provide shifts, shadowing and buddying at the London Youth Hub.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following this incident, DePaul took quick action to address the concerns regarding the ‘chaotic’ feel of the service. This included:”

Source location

Response from DePaul
Page 17 · response
Published 21 November 2023

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

Relevant safeguarding referrals were for medical professionals to make; limited intervention was possible because the service was not a care provider.

Verbatim wording from the response

“DePaul submit that they had contacted the medical professionals (the GP) and previously the Crisis Team it was for them to make the relevant safeguarding referrals if in their medical opinion, this was required. DePaul spoke to numerous professionals on numerous occasions, referred him to the Crisis Team who referenced his drug problems, DePaul referred him to drug agencies and he would not engage with these. DePaul referred him to safeguarding and also to the GP. Safeguarding referrals were also made to Islington and to Hounslow. As DePaul were not a Care provider, they were limited in what they could do to progress any intervention with such organisations.”

Source location

Response from DePaul
Page 6 · response
Published 21 November 2023

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

Next-of-kin details are requested but not required, and visitor contact details are not recorded under data-protection procedures.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Response: DePaul request next of kin details for all our clients, when they move into their services however it is not a condition or requirement of accommodation and given the family relationship history of many of their clients, it is unsurprising that they choose not to provide this information. DePaul’s Data Protection policy outlines it may be necessary to share information with other agencies and organisations – this is related to safeguarding concerns – and they are clear with clients about this. Where clients have visitors, they record their time and date of visit, and their name but do not record their contact details. This in line with data protection procedures. When a serious incident occurs, and next of kin do need to be notified, they share relevant information that they may hold with the police and the police are required to contact the next of kin.”

Source location

Response from DePaul
Page 13 · response
Published 21 November 2023

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

DePaul disputes that it failed to identify behavioural deterioration or raise concerns, citing referrals to mental-health services and safeguarding teams.

Verbatim wording from the response

“6.9 Though DePaul have reflected following this incident and put in place the above measures and action plan, as discussed at 3.2.1, DePaul raised issues of a deterioration in mental health with the Crisis Team and were told that it was a substance use issue not a mental health issue. This is after he had expressed an intention to take his own life through electrocution in the shower. The GP refused to prescribe his medication given that he had taken 4 weeks supply in 14 days (as detailed at paragraph 3.2.1). DePaul did identify changes in behaviour and raised those concerns with the appropriate mental health services and safeguarding.”

Source location

Response from DePaul
Page 19 · response
Published 21 November 2023

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

The claim that meaningful staff contact ended on 20 April is disputed because staff and partner agencies recorded regular subsequent interactions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Response: Staff from DePaul had regular contact with Mr Szalapski. According to In-form – which does not capture every interaction he had with staff, there were over 112 recorded contacts with him during his time at the service The client contact record on 20 April 2023 refers to a discussion with him about the court case in relation to an injunction his family had taken out against him. On 21 April 2023, staff met with him to discuss his housing options his drug use, the reasons for staff checking on him (he reported he felt ‘babied’ at the Youth Hub in response to increased checks on him), and his relationships with other clients at the service. These were relayed at the Inquest in the evidence of ████████, as more “Structured Support” interactions rather than check-ins.”

Source location

Response from DePaul
Page 9 · response
Published 21 November 2023

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.5

  1. 1

    Ensure individual case reviews continue alongside wider organisational reviews after serious incidents.

    Stated by Depaul UKStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 21 November 2023.
  2. 2

    Share the report and associated action plan with the Charity Commission.

    Stated by Depaul UKStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 21 November 2023.
  3. 3

    Increase thresholds for accessing and entering supported accommodation.

    Stated by Depaul UKStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 21 November 2023.
  4. 4

    Finalise and implement an organisational action plan, with high-level monitoring through executive and services committee meetings.

    Stated by Depaul UKStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 21 November 2023.
  5. 5

    Review how Incident Safeguarding and Near Miss actions are recorded in In-form to make them quantifiable and monitorable.

    Stated by Depaul UKStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 21 November 2023.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.3

  1. 1

    The local authority had responsibility for suitable accommodation, but no appropriate placement was available.

    Stated by Depaul UKRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
  2. 2

    The emergency Youth Hub was not supported or specialist accommodation and could not provide for complex, high support needs.

    Stated by Depaul UKOutside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.
  3. 3

    When serious incidents occur, the police are responsible for notifying next of kin using relevant information held.

    Stated by Depaul UKRedirects 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

Ensure individual case reviews continue alongside wider organisational reviews after serious incidents.

Verbatim wording from the response

“6.7 More broadly, following this incident DePaul quickly undertook a number of HR investigations and broader service changes and improvements. Whilst this was necessary to ensure the safety and wellbeing of other clients, this meant DePaul did not in parallel complete an individual case review into the support Mr Szalapski received. DePaul will, going forwards, ensure following serious incidents, that individual case reviews continue alongside wider organisational reviews.”

Source location

Response from DePaul
Page 19 · response
Published 21 November 2023

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

Share the report and associated action plan with the Charity Commission.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3.1.2 DePaul is not regulated by the CQC. DePaul are therefore confused as to why the PFD Report has been shared with the CQC. DePaul are in fact a registered charity and in accordance with their regulatory obligations, have kept the Charity Commission updated throughout this matter, including sharing the PFD Report. This report and associated action plan will also be shared with the Charity Commission.”

Source location

Response from DePaul
Page 3 · response
Published 21 November 2023

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

Increase thresholds for accessing and entering supported accommodation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following this incident, DePaul took quick action to address the concerns regarding the ‘chaotic’ feel of the service. This included:”

Source location

Response from DePaul
Page 17 · response
Published 21 November 2023

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

Finalise and implement an organisational action plan, with high-level monitoring through executive and services committee meetings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“5 Action taken or to be taken, whether in response to the report or otherwise, and the timetable for it, or it must explain why no action is proposed (Regulation 29(3)).”

Source location

Response from DePaul
Page 18 · response
Published 21 November 2023

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 how Incident Safeguarding and Near Miss actions are recorded in In-form to make them quantifiable and monitorable.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In the absence of a record on In-form relating to referrals post the 14 April 2023 ISN, along with the staff who were present at the time leaving employment with DePaul, they cannot confirm such safeguarding referrals were made.”

Source location

Response from DePaul
Page 9 · response
Published 21 November 2023

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

The local authority had responsibility for suitable accommodation, but no appropriate placement was available.

Verbatim wording from the response

“On 17 April 2023, DePaul emailed Hounslow Substance Use Service which outlined the incident, the steps taken with the GP and asked for an update on moving him on and the concerns around his safety. This is outlined in DePaul’s Incident safeguarding or near miss report (DePaul’s internal incident management reporting system). This was in response to the Substance Use team stating on 14 April that there was no immediate availability for alternative accommodation. DePaul continue to struggle, much like many other organisations, to find such higher needs accommodation even though as with Mr Szalapski, the local”

Source location

Response from DePaul
Page 7 · response
Published 21 November 2023

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

The emergency Youth Hub was not supported or specialist accommodation and could not provide for complex, high support needs.

Verbatim wording from the response

“6.5 The Youth Hub provided temporary emergency shelter for him – a better alternative than rough sleeping – but not supported or specialist accommodation. He had complex high needs, that the Youth Hub was not able to provide. His housing needs were raised by both New Horizon (responsible for the housing move on) and Depaul who advocated that the Youth Hub was not able to meet his needs.”

Source location

Response from DePaul
Page 18 · response
Published 21 November 2023

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

When serious incidents occur, the police are responsible for notifying next of kin using relevant information held.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Response: DePaul request next of kin details for all our clients, when they move into their services however it is not a condition or requirement of accommodation and given the family relationship history of many of their clients, it is unsurprising that they choose not to provide this information. DePaul’s Data Protection policy outlines it may be necessary to share information with other agencies and organisations – this is related to safeguarding concerns – and they are clear with clients about this. Where clients have visitors, they record their time and date of visit, and their name but do not record their contact details. This in line with data protection procedures. When a serious incident occurs, and next of kin do need to be notified, they share relevant information that they may hold with the police and the police are required to contact the next of kin.”

Source location

Response from DePaul
Page 13 · response
Published 21 November 2023

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