PFD report

Ms. Kimberley Parsons · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 4 Mar 2014•Avon

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
2

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. Lack of published evidence supporting assisted self-harming as a treatment approach
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to ensure clinical treatment approaches are supported by adequate evidence
  2. Lack of proper procedures for introducing and using novel treatments
  3. Failure to discuss proposed treatment with the consultant in charge
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable communication of patient-care information between clinical staff
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

    Undertake research into whether harm minimisation strategies are appropriate for use.

    Stated by Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 4 March 2015.
  2. Action

    Maintain regular contact with AWP to monitor progress against regulatory requirements.

    Stated by Care Quality CommissionStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 4 March 2015.
  3. Action

    Conduct unannounced inspections across AWP to establish compliance with the warning notices.

    Stated by Care Quality CommissionStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 4 March 2015.

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 published evidence supporting assisted self-harming as a treatment approach

Wider context from the report

“(1) The suggestion made to Ms. Parsons, a person with a history of self-harming and who remained at high risk of self-harming, that she could be assisted with self-harming was not an approach to patient care and treatment which was supported by any reference to the results of any research published in a peer-reviewed professional journal. Therefore if this is a bona fide approach to treatment in a high risk patient then the Trust should be able to justify that this is a recognised and generally accepted practice by reference to the published literature and/or results of published research. (2) If the Trust cannot provide evidence to support this treatment being a recognised and generally accepted practice then the Trust must establish proper procedures for the introduction and use of novel treatments including the obtaining of any necessary ethical approvals. (3) This discussion with regard to ‘assisted self-harming’ was not discussed by the nurse with the consultant psychiatrist nor was any record made of the discussion. The Trust should undertake a proper review of any training with respect to these matters so as to ensure any discussions with regard to proposed treatment are had with the full knowledge and agreement of the consultant in charge and that those discussions are properly recorded. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure clinical treatment approaches are supported by adequate evidence.

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 proper procedures for introducing and using novel treatments

Wider context from the report

“(1) The suggestion made to Ms. Parsons, a person with a history of self-harming and who remained at high risk of self-harming, that she could be assisted with self-harming was not an approach to patient care and treatment which was supported by any reference to the results of any research published in a peer-reviewed professional journal. Therefore if this is a bona fide approach to treatment in a high risk patient then the Trust should be able to justify that this is a recognised and generally accepted practice by reference to the published literature and/or results of published research. (2) If the Trust cannot provide evidence to support this treatment being a recognised and generally accepted practice then the Trust must establish proper procedures for the introduction and use of novel treatments including the obtaining of any necessary ethical approvals. (3) This discussion with regard to ‘assisted self-harming’ was not discussed by the nurse with the consultant psychiatrist nor was any record made of the discussion. The Trust should undertake a proper review of any training with respect to these matters so as to ensure any discussions with regard to proposed treatment are had with the full knowledge and agreement of the consultant in charge and that those discussions are properly recorded. ”

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 discuss proposed treatment with the consultant in charge

Wider context from the report

“(1) The suggestion made to Ms. Parsons, a person with a history of self-harming and who remained at high risk of self-harming, that she could be assisted with self-harming was not an approach to patient care and treatment which was supported by any reference to the results of any research published in a peer-reviewed professional journal. Therefore if this is a bona fide approach to treatment in a high risk patient then the Trust should be able to justify that this is a recognised and generally accepted practice by reference to the published literature and/or results of published research. (2) If the Trust cannot provide evidence to support this treatment being a recognised and generally accepted practice then the Trust must establish proper procedures for the introduction and use of novel treatments including the obtaining of any necessary ethical approvals. (3) This discussion with regard to ‘assisted self-harming’ was not discussed by the nurse with the consultant psychiatrist nor was any record made of the discussion. The Trust should undertake a proper review of any training with respect to these matters so as to ensure any discussions with regard to proposed treatment are had with the full knowledge and agreement of the consultant in charge and that those discussions are properly recorded. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable communication of patient-care information between clinical staff.

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 proposed treatment discussions

Wider context from the report

“(1) The suggestion made to Ms. Parsons, a person with a history of self-harming and who remained at high risk of self-harming, that she could be assisted with self-harming was not an approach to patient care and treatment which was supported by any reference to the results of any research published in a peer-reviewed professional journal. Therefore if this is a bona fide approach to treatment in a high risk patient then the Trust should be able to justify that this is a recognised and generally accepted practice by reference to the published literature and/or results of published research. (2) If the Trust cannot provide evidence to support this treatment being a recognised and generally accepted practice then the Trust must establish proper procedures for the introduction and use of novel treatments including the obtaining of any necessary ethical approvals. (3) This discussion with regard to ‘assisted self-harming’ was not discussed by the nurse with the consultant psychiatrist nor was any record made of the discussion. The Trust should undertake a proper review of any training with respect to these matters so as to ensure any discussions with regard to proposed treatment are had with the full knowledge and agreement of the consultant in charge and that those discussions are properly recorded. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable clinical and care records.

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 address identified patient-safety deficiencies at Hillview Lodge

Wider context from the report

“(1) That serious deficiencies affecting the safety of patients at Hillview Lodge which had been identified in March 2014 had not been addressed by the Trust by the time of the CQC inspection in June 2014. ”

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

Undertake research into whether harm minimisation strategies are appropriate for use.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Medical Director has liaised with the national expert in this field. ████████ who will soon be joining the University of Bristol and our trust. We will be looking at the possibility of research into the appropriateness, or not, of employing harm minimisation strategies.”

Source location

2015-0077-Response-by-Avon-Wiltshire-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 4 March 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

Maintain regular contact with AWP to monitor progress against regulatory requirements.

Verbatim wording from the response

“CQC maintained regular contact with AWP following the comprehensive inspection in order to monitor progress in meeting requirements and in addition, in December 2014 carried out a programme of unannounced inspections across AWP to establish whether the trust had complied with the warning notices.”

Source location

2015-0077-Response-by-Care-Quality-Commission
Page 2 · response
Published 4 March 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

Conduct unannounced inspections across AWP to establish compliance with the warning notices.

Verbatim wording from the response

“CQC maintained regular contact with AWP following the comprehensive inspection in order to monitor progress in meeting requirements and in addition, in December 2014 carried out a programme of unannounced inspections across AWP to establish whether the trust had complied with the warning notices.”

Source location

2015-0077-Response-by-Care-Quality-Commission
Page 2 · response
Published 4 March 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 a comprehensive inspection of AWP, including a focused review of Hillview Lodge and rating the organisation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“You may be aware that the Care Quality Commission (CQC) carried out a comprehensive inspection of the Avon and Wiltshire Partnership NHS Trust (AWP) in June 2014. This was one of the ‘pilot’ new style comprehensive inspections of NHS and independent healthcare organisations. As such, whilst we provided a narrative in the report as to whether the trust was providing safe, effective care that was responsive to people’s needs, delivered by staff that were caring and whether the trust was well led we did not provide a rating (now rate organisations on a four point scale – outstanding, good, requires improvement and inadequate against these key areas).”

Source location

2015-0077-Response-by-Care-Quality-Commission
Page 1 · response
Published 4 March 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

Issue enforcement warning notices addressing trust-wide incident learning and Hillview Lodge environmental safety deficiencies.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As a consequence of the inspection enforcement action was taken and four warning notices were issued. The warning notices served to notify the provider (AWP) that CQC had judged that the quality of health care provided for the regulated activities required significant improvement. Two of the warning notices were relevant to Hillview.”

Source location

2015-0077-Response-by-Care-Quality-Commission
Page 1 · response
Published 4 March 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

Make an unannounced Mental Health Act visit to Hillview Lodge to assess environmental and health-and-safety compliance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In addition, CQC undertakes focused visits to assess compliance with the the Mental Health Act. Whilst these visits look closely at issues surrounding patients detained under the Mental Health Act they also look at environmental issues and health and safety. An unannounced Mental Health Act visit will be made to Hillview Lodge in the next few months.”

Source location

2015-0077-Response-by-Care-Quality-Commission
Page 2 · response
Published 4 March 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

Undertake a further comprehensive inspection of AWP before April 2016, including particular attention to Hillview’s compliance actions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As the inspection in June 2014 was part of the ‘pilot’ programme and not rated a further comprehensive inspection will be undertaken at some time in the future (before April 2016) when AWP will be rated. As part of the inspection Hillview Lodge will be visited and particular attention will be paid to progress made against the compliance actions.”

Source location

2015-0077-Response-by-Care-Quality-Commission
Page 2 · response
Published 4 March 2015

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.1

  1. 1

    Issue an internal safety alert to clinical staff clarifying the Trust’s position on harm minimisation.

    Stated by Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 4 March 2015.

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

  1. 1

    Harm minimisation should only be used in highly controlled specialist settings because broader use is easily misinterpreted.

    Stated by Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS TrustDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
  2. 2

    The provider’s Executive Director of Nursing will establish and provide feedback about the individual clinician’s practice.

    Stated by Care Quality CommissionRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
  3. 3

    The practice of individual clinicians falls outside the regulator’s remit.

    Stated by Care Quality CommissionOutside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.

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

Issue an internal safety alert to clinical staff clarifying the Trust’s position on harm minimisation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We plan to issue an internal safety alert to all clinical staff to remind them of the trust’s position regarding harm minimisation. The alert is prepared by our Consultant Nurse for suicide prevention and will be considered by both the trust Critical Incident Overview Group and the Suicide Prevention Group. Once approved, I will forward you a copy of the alert and confirm that it has been distributed.”

Source location

2015-0077-Response-by-Avon-Wiltshire-NHS-Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 4 March 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

Harm minimisation should only be used in highly controlled specialist settings because broader use is easily misinterpreted.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust does not currently endorse the use of harm minimisation strategies in deliberate self-harm. We recognise that this is a highly specialised approach which should only be undertaken in the most controlled of situations such as in a specialist unit. Our staff member should not have noticed the possibility of safe self-harm with Kimberly as this is a term which is easily misinterpreted. I am sorry for the distress that this has caused to Kimberly and her family.”

Source location

2015-0077-Response-by-Avon-Wiltshire-NHS-Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 4 March 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

The provider’s Executive Director of Nursing will establish and provide feedback about the individual clinician’s practice.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Thank you for sending us a copy of the report that was issued to AWP regarding to the practice of an individual clinician. We have brought this to the attention of ████████ Executive Director of Nursing at AWP during one of our routine meetings. ████████ will establish and provide further feedback regarding this. The practice of individual clinicians is not within CQC's remit.”

Source location

2015-0077-Response-by-Care-Quality-Commission
Page 3 · response
Published 4 March 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

The practice of individual clinicians falls outside the regulator’s remit.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Thank you for sending us a copy of the report that was issued to AWP regarding to the practice of an individual clinician. We have brought this to the attention of ████████ Executive Director of Nursing at AWP during one of our routine meetings. ████████ will establish and provide further feedback regarding this. The practice of individual clinicians is not within CQC's remit.”

Source location

2015-0077-Response-by-Care-Quality-Commission
Page 3 · response
Published 4 March 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
2/4

Data last updated 7 September 2026