PFD report

DARREN HAYES · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 17 Dec 2014•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
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
3

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 raised5

  1. Failure to escalate unanswered telephone contact attempts to a senior worker
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to take timely escalation action when safety thresholds are breached
  2. Failure to contact relevant health and support professionals after no response
  3. Failure to document telephone contact attempts
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.3

  1. Action

    Review guidance for prioritising referrals, including how individual risks are identified and assessed.

    Stated by Norfolk County CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 17 December 2014.
  2. Action

    Review Duty Operational Instructions to incorporate risk information into decisions about when referred people receive initial contact.

    Stated by Norfolk County CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 17 December 2014.
  3. Action

    Develop a best-practice factsheet formalising contact attempts, escalation, identification of relevant contacts, and communication when referred people cannot be reached.

    Stated by Norfolk County CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 17 December 2014.

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 escalate unanswered telephone contact attempts to a senior worker

Wider context from the report

“(1) Attempts to contact Mr Hayes by telephone were not documented nor escalated to a senior worker – it is understood NCC have taken steps to ensure that staff are aware that all calls (even those where there is no response are documented) and a senior member of staff is made aware; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to take timely escalation action when safety thresholds are breached.

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 contact relevant health and support professionals after no response

Wider context from the report

“(3) Despite eating no response to telephone calls or letter, SW did not contact GP, District Nurse or Red Cross (who had discharged him) ”

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 document telephone contact attempts

Wider context from the report

“(1) Attempts to contact Mr Hayes by telephone were not documented nor escalated to a senior worker – it is understood NCC have taken steps to ensure that staff are aware that all calls (even those where there is no response are documented) and a senior member of staff is made aware; ”

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 fully consider identified risks in assessment

Wider context from the report

“(3) The risks with which Mr Hayes were not fully considered ie his diabetes being “out of control”, weighing less than 7 stone, lacking motivation, struggling to manage at home, living alone and having no cooker. He was no longer receiving 3 daily visits from NFRS. The evidence was that Mr Hayes had a microwave and could swallow small pieces “a hot drink”. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Untimely or incomplete community care assessments.

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

Delays in contacting people referred for assessment despite identified risks

Wider context from the report

“(2) The time taken to contact Mr Hayes in the light of the information provided and the risks with which Mr Hayes was presenting. The initial referral to the ECCT was on 10.3.2014, he was allocated for initial assessment which was due to take place on 28.3.14; 3 weeks later. The first attempt to telephone Mr Hayes was on 1.4.2014. A letter was sent to Mr Hayes and on receiving no response, there was no further attempt to contact Mr Hayes until 16.4.2014, almost 5 weeks after both the initial referral and his death. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to complete timely direct mental health assessments after referral.

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

Review guidance for prioritising referrals, including how individual risks are identified and assessed.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I confirm a review of the Duty Operational Instructions is already in progress, and the Coroner’s concerns will be built into this work. It is recognised that local custom and practice need to be formalised so that information about risk set out in the referrals is properly taken into account in determining when initial contact is made with people who have been referred to the Service. The Quality Assurance team are reviewing current guidance regarding the way in which such referrals are prioritised.”

Source location

2014-0538-Response-by-Norfolk-County-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 17 December 2014

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 Duty Operational Instructions to incorporate risk information into decisions about when referred people receive initial contact.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I confirm a review of the Duty Operational Instructions is already in progress, and the Coroner’s concerns will be built into this work. It is recognised that local custom and practice need to be formalised so that information about risk set out in the referrals is properly taken into account in determining when initial contact is made with people who have been referred to the Service. The Quality Assurance team are reviewing current guidance regarding the way in which such referrals are prioritised.”

Source location

2014-0538-Response-by-Norfolk-County-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 17 December 2014

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 a best-practice factsheet formalising contact attempts, escalation, identification of relevant contacts, and communication when referred people cannot be reached.

Verbatim wording from the response

“(1) Attempts to contact Mr Hayes by telephone were not documented nor escalated to a senior worker – it is understood NCC have taken steps to ensure that staff are aware that all calls (even where there is no response are documented) and a senior member of staff is made aware;”

Source location

2014-0538-Response-by-Norfolk-County-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 17 December 2014

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