PFD report

Odessa Carey · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 12 May 2023•North Northumberland and South Northumberland

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
13

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
0

Of 1 recipient

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 raised13

  1. Failure to explore assault, violence and intimidation concerns with the service user, family and other agencies
  2. Failure to coordinate inpatient discharge with family and other agencies
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to involve families and carers in discharge planning and decisionsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable hospital discharge processes
  3. Failure of the care coordinator to establish direct contact and a relationship with the service user before discharge
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to actively engage mental health service users before dischargePart of recurring concern: Unreliable hospital discharge processes
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 explore assault, violence and intimidation concerns with the service user, family and other agencies

Wider context from the report

“1. Multi-agency Risk Assessment Conference (“MARAC”) I heard evidence of issues of assault, violence and intimidation. Further that the consent of the individual reporting the concerns is not always required in order to complete a MARAC referral. Whilst I recognise that the extent of the issues could have been diminished out of familial ties or for other reasons, I am concerned that staff did not explore the issues to a greater extent with the deceased, the wider family and other agencies. ”

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 coordinate inpatient discharge with family and other agencies

Wider context from the report

“3. Inpatient discharge 30 May 2018 The discharge was not a coordinated discharge in line with the trust CPA policy. There was no discharge meeting, no involvement with other agencies or family, the service user was still mentally unwell, having delusional beliefs, without supported accommodation, vulnerable, moving to a new locality and without familial support I am concerned there was a lack of opportunity to involve the family or other agencies in the discharge. I am concerned that there was no direct contact or introduction to the service user from the care coordinator whilst an inpatient or before discharge to establish a relationship and trust. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to involve families and carers in discharge planning and decisions; Unreliable hospital discharge processes.

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 the care coordinator to establish direct contact and a relationship with the service user before discharge

Wider context from the report

“3. Inpatient discharge 30 May 2018 The discharge was not a coordinated discharge in line with the trust CPA policy. There was no discharge meeting, no involvement with other agencies or family, the service user was still mentally unwell, having delusional beliefs, without supported accommodation, vulnerable, moving to a new locality and without familial support I am concerned there was a lack of opportunity to involve the family or other agencies in the discharge. I am concerned that there was no direct contact or introduction to the service user from the care coordinator whilst an inpatient or before discharge to establish a relationship and trust. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to actively engage mental health service users before discharge; Unreliable hospital discharge processes.

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 obtain care coordinator consent and agreement before role assignment

Wider context from the report

“5. Appointment of a Care Coordinator I heard that in line with the trust CPA policy paragraph 12.1 “Consent must always be sought from a professional prior to them being identified as a Care Coordinator. Under no circumstances must any professional be stated as Care Coordinator without negotiation and agreement. “ I am concerned that consent and agreement was not obtained from a care coordinator prior to being identified for the role of care coordinator and concerns regarding capacity were not considered. ”

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

Absence of an audit system for timely referrals

Wider context from the report

“8. Contact with IRT and referral to Community Treatment Team The service user contacted the service on a number of occasions and sought self-referral to the Crisis team on 19 September 2018 who assessed her as requiring a re-referral to the community team. No referral was made. I am concerned that there was a delay in the referral to the Community Treatment Team and there is no audit system to ensure referrals are made and in a timely fashion. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable clinical task management and follow-through.

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 in-person engagement before discharge from the Community Treatment Team

Wider context from the report

“4. Discharge from the Community Treatment Team on 6 August 2018 There was no pre-discharge meeting in line with trust CPA Policy involving the family, lead professionals, other agencies or a Consultant Psychiatrist for future planning. A more assertive approach to engagement may have been appropriate. I am concerned that following discharge from the Lowry ward to the community and prior to discharge from the community treatment team, the deceased was seen only four times in person by individuals from the mental health team and only once by the care coordinator. I am concerned that more intense, in person engagement was warranted and discharge from the Community Treatment Team was premature. I am concerned that the service user was not seen by a Consultant Psychiatrist at all after 30 May 2018 despite enquiring about a further appointment. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to actively engage mental health service users before discharge; Unreliable Community Mental Health care access and discharge processes; Unsafe discharge, closure or withdrawal of mental health services.

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

Inconsistent approaches to risk assessment

Wider context from the report

“6. FACE Risk assessment tool I am concerned that there continues to be an inconsistent approach to the assessment of risk. Various methods are still being deployed and there is a possibility of a disparity in the understanding of the risk to the service user and others. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable objective criteria for safety risk assessment.

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 refer service users with substance misuse needs to substance misuse services

Wider context from the report

“2. Assessment of substance misuse The service user had a history of substance misuse in particular cannabis and its impact on mental health was recognised. Whilst I acknowledge issues regarding service user consent and compliance, I am concerned there was no referral to substance misuse services for advice or assessment and treatment whilst an inpatient or in the community. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable integration of substance misuse services into patient care.

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 consider capacity concerns when appointing a care coordinator

Wider context from the report

“5. Appointment of a Care Coordinator I heard that in line with the trust CPA policy paragraph 12.1 “Consent must always be sought from a professional prior to them being identified as a Care Coordinator. Under no circumstances must any professional be stated as Care Coordinator without negotiation and agreement. “ I am concerned that consent and agreement was not obtained from a care coordinator prior to being identified for the role of care coordinator and concerns regarding capacity were not considered. ”

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 hold a multidisciplinary pre-discharge meeting for future planning

Wider context from the report

“4. Discharge from the Community Treatment Team on 6 August 2018 There was no pre-discharge meeting in line with trust CPA Policy involving the family, lead professionals, other agencies or a Consultant Psychiatrist for future planning. A more assertive approach to engagement may have been appropriate. I am concerned that following discharge from the Lowry ward to the community and prior to discharge from the community treatment team, the deceased was seen only four times in person by individuals from the mental health team and only once by the care coordinator. I am concerned that more intense, in person engagement was warranted and discharge from the Community Treatment Team was premature. I am concerned that the service user was not seen by a Consultant Psychiatrist at all after 30 May 2018 despite enquiring about a further appointment. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to involve families and carers in discharge planning and decisions; Unreliable Community Mental Health care access and discharge processes.

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 make timely and complete clinical records documenting assessment, care planning and decision-making rationale

Wider context from the report

“7. Record Keeping Documentation I am concerned that entries in the RiO medical records were not made in line with Trust guidance in a timely, complete manner or at all. I am concerned that evidence of clinical assessment, care planning and the reasoning behind clinical decision making were not 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

Delays and failures in referral to the Community Treatment Team

Wider context from the report

“8. Contact with IRT and referral to Community Treatment Team The service user contacted the service on a number of occasions and sought self-referral to the Crisis team on 19 September 2018 who assessed her as requiring a re-referral to the community team. No referral was made. I am concerned that there was a delay in the referral to the Community Treatment Team and there is no audit system to ensure referrals are made and in a timely fashion. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable mental health referral pathways.

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 provide Consultant Psychiatrist review after 30 May 2018

Wider context from the report

“4. Discharge from the Community Treatment Team on 6 August 2018 There was no pre-discharge meeting in line with trust CPA Policy involving the family, lead professionals, other agencies or a Consultant Psychiatrist for future planning. A more assertive approach to engagement may have been appropriate. I am concerned that following discharge from the Lowry ward to the community and prior to discharge from the community treatment team, the deceased was seen only four times in person by individuals from the mental health team and only once by the care coordinator. I am concerned that more intense, in person engagement was warranted and discharge from the Community Treatment Team was premature. I am concerned that the service user was not seen by a Consultant Psychiatrist at all after 30 May 2018 despite enquiring about a further appointment. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Delays in consultant review of patients; Failure to provide effective consultant psychiatrist oversight in mental health care; Failure to provide timely continuing mental health reviews and follow-up.

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
0/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026

No official response is included in the current published snapshot.