PFD report

Christopher John Bird (“Chris”) · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 23 Sep 2025•Wiltshire and Swindon

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
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
3

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 3 recipients

Stated actions
7

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 raised2

  1. Systemic failure in communication between mental health and primary care
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable coordination and information sharing between primary and secondary carePart of recurring concern: Unreliable inter-agency information sharing for coordinated care
  2. Failure of nhs.net email to reliably deliver important information to GP practices
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable multi-agency communication proceduresPart of recurring concern: Unreliable receipt and routing of clinical correspondence by GP practices
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.5

  1. Action

    Review AMHT communication practice, identify available changes and assess which options could strengthen controls against GPs missing important communications.

    Stated by Oxford Health NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 29 September 2025.
  2. Action

    Evaluate the DWF Hub’s DocMan process and use Trust governance processes to decide whether to adopt it across the other Hub teams.

    Stated by Oxford Health NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 29 September 2025.
  3. Action

    Discuss AMHT communication practices with teams to identify whether improvements are needed.

    Stated by Oxford Health NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 29 September 2025.

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

  1. Position

    DocMan is considered effective, timely and secure for communication between Oxfordshire Talking Therapies and GPs.

    Stated by Oxford Health NHS Foundation TrustExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

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

Systemic failure in communication between mental health and primary care

Wider context from the report

“During the course of the Inquest, I heard evidence from ████████ the joint Senior Partner at The White Horse Medical Practice. Having asked colleagues to carry out a forensic search for evidence of the e-mail having been received and finding none he did allude to a view that was not shared by him alone, but by colleagues both within the Surgery and it appears colleagues in other surgeries that there were concerns that when using the nhs.net e-mail e-mails had gone missing and were not received through the system suggesting its 100% reliability. I personally have not come across another case where this issue has been raised but there is no evidence that I saw that pointed to the e-mail having been incorrectly sent by mental health to the GP practice and I have to accept ████████ evidence that there is no evidence to support it was in fact received. The systemic failure in my view more than minimally contributed to the deterioration in Chris’ mental health that led to his death late afternoon on the 19 September 2024. When Chris spoke with another GP on the 16 September 2024, she was unaware of the response from mental health because the e-mail indicating in detail the nature of that response was never received by the GP practice. She in turn contacted the embedded mental health social worker the next day via e-mail although however he was not available that day hence the assumption that that was the reason if not a combined reason for Chris’ case being discussed at the hub meeting on the 19 September 2024. If there is a reliability issue with the use of nhs.net for whatever reason such as old infrastructure, in that clearly is a concern and one which I am of the view could impact on future deaths if important information having been sent through the system is not guaranteed to be received and is lost; During the course of the Inquest it became clear that there had been a systemic failure in relation to the communication from mental health to primary care on the 28 August 2024 and I asked and indicated that I would like both organisations to work together to reflect on the finding in relation to ways of working relative to the interaction between secondary and primary care levels to see if there are any measures that could be undertaken to minimise and ideally exclude the repetition of such an incident occurring again. It is not the job of a Coroner to make recommendations. You are aware of my concern here and I am sure that Chris' brother, ████████ would equally welcome your joint input in respect of the matter. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable coordination and information sharing between primary and secondary care; Unreliable inter-agency information sharing for coordinated 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 of nhs.net email to reliably deliver important information to GP practices

Wider context from the report

“During the course of the Inquest, I heard evidence from ████████ the joint Senior Partner at The White Horse Medical Practice. Having asked colleagues to carry out a forensic search for evidence of the e-mail having been received and finding none he did allude to a view that was not shared by him alone, but by colleagues both within the Surgery and it appears colleagues in other surgeries that there were concerns that when using the nhs.net e-mail e-mails had gone missing and were not received through the system suggesting its 100% reliability. I personally have not come across another case where this issue has been raised but there is no evidence that I saw that pointed to the e-mail having been incorrectly sent by mental health to the GP practice and I have to accept ████████ evidence that there is no evidence to support it was in fact received. The systemic failure in my view more than minimally contributed to the deterioration in Chris’ mental health that led to his death late afternoon on the 19 September 2024. When Chris spoke with another GP on the 16 September 2024, she was unaware of the response from mental health because the e-mail indicating in detail the nature of that response was never received by the GP practice. She in turn contacted the embedded mental health social worker the next day via e-mail although however he was not available that day hence the assumption that that was the reason if not a combined reason for Chris’ case being discussed at the hub meeting on the 19 September 2024. If there is a reliability issue with the use of nhs.net for whatever reason such as old infrastructure, in that clearly is a concern and one which I am of the view could impact on future deaths if important information having been sent through the system is not guaranteed to be received and is lost; During the course of the Inquest it became clear that there had been a systemic failure in relation to the communication from mental health to primary care on the 28 August 2024 and I asked and indicated that I would like both organisations to work together to reflect on the finding in relation to ways of working relative to the interaction between secondary and primary care levels to see if there are any measures that could be undertaken to minimise and ideally exclude the repetition of such an incident occurring again. It is not the job of a Coroner to make recommendations. You are aware of my concern here and I am sure that Chris' brother, ████████ would equally welcome your joint input in respect of the matter. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable multi-agency communication procedures; Unreliable receipt and routing of clinical correspondence by GP practices.

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 AMHT communication practice, identify available changes and assess which options could strengthen controls against GPs missing important communications.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Service Managers agreed to talk to their teams about how communication with GPs is happening and whether anything can/should be done to make an”

Source location

Response from Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 29 September 2025

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

Evaluate the DWF Hub’s DocMan process and use Trust governance processes to decide whether to adopt it across the other Hub teams.

Verbatim wording from the response

“There are seven other Hub teams in Oxfordshire (eight in total with the DWF Hub being one). The plan is for the Trust to evaluate the use of DocMan by the DWF Hub and we will then utilise Trust governance processes to make a decision on whether the new process is adopted in each of the hubs.”

Source location

Response from Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 29 September 2025

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

Discuss AMHT communication practices with teams to identify whether improvements are needed.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Service Managers agreed to talk to their teams about how communication with GPs is happening and whether anything can/should be done to make an”

Source location

Response from Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 29 September 2025

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

Use DocMan instead of email for DWF Hub referral-outcome communication with GPs, except when the referrer explicitly requests email.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. Primary Care Mental Health Hubs The manager of the Didcot, Wantage and Faringdon Hub (”DWF Hub”) attended the inquest and provided you with some evidence on the day. They have introduced an immediate change to the practice at the DWF Hub. The change is that the DWF Hub has changed its practice, and now also uses the DocMan system as the means of communication with GPs with regard to the outcome of a referral. The team no longer uses email, save where there is an explicit request for email to be used by the referrer.”

Source location

Response from Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 29 September 2025

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 Clinical Safety Cases, Hazard Logs and Data Protection Impact Assessments before national NHSmail deployment.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Prior to the roll out of NHSmail across England, Clinical Safety Cases, Hazard Logs, and Data Protection Impact Assessments were undertaken to support the delivery of the service at a national level. Clinical Safety Cases are used to ensure any clinical risks, hazards and potential harms are identified prior to deployment and these are managed within either product development or within system adoption methodologies. The model uses joint data controllers and clearly sets out in the requirements of organisations using the service, that they have similar local-level policies in place.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 29 September 2025

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

DocMan is considered effective, timely and secure for communication between Oxfordshire Talking Therapies and GPs.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1. Oxfordshire Talking Therapies The Oxfordshire talking therapies service was commissioned by the CCG/general practitioners for Oxfordshire, with an established practice by which the service communicates with GPs. This is a system called DocMan. That system has been the agreed process for many years and the Trust’s position is that it provides effective, timely and secure communication between Oxfordshire Talking Therapies and GPs.”

Source location

Response from Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 29 September 2025

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 Trust will not change AMHT communication practices until it understands available options, utility and potential consequences.

Verbatim wording from the response

“improvement. Email communication with GPs is commonplace across AMHTs and the Trust must apply diligence to any decision to direct staff to change their practice. That is particularly so because managers are not aware of any similar incidents between AMHTs and GPs and the Trust is reticent to make what could be a significant change without being confident that it will have utility for service users of AMHT services.”

Source location

Response from Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 29 September 2025

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 forensic search found that the mental health email was received by the GP practice and copied into the patient's clinical record.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Forensic discovery has confirmed that a referral letter was sent from the White Horse Medical Practice via the electronic referral service (e-RS) to the community mental health team at 8:40am on 28 August 2024 by the GP administration team.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 3 · response
Published 29 September 2025

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

NHSmail is considered reliable and resilient, with monitoring, recovery mechanisms, support arrangements and established clinical safety controls.

Verbatim wording from the response

“NHSmail is considered a reliable and resilient email platform, specifically designed and maintained for NHS business communications, with systems put in place to protect and recover from common IT failures like outages. While occasional incidents do occur, such as delayed arrival of emails in the destination mailbox, the overall reliability is strong, and service status is closely monitored and reported on the NHS support webpage, with disruptions usually resolved quickly and service continuity prioritized. All users of NHSmail are encouraged to contact their local administrator or service desk if they are experiencing any issues. If these cannot be resolved by the user’s local IT team, then there is a national NHSmail helpdesk which operates 24 hours a day.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 29 September 2025

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.2

  1. 1

    Consider wider consultation with GP representatives and the Integrated Care Board about AMHT communication options.

    Stated by Oxford Health NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 29 September 2025.
  2. 2

    Discuss Prevention of Future Deaths reports through the Regulation 28 Working Group and share resulting learning across national and regional NHS services.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 29 September 2025.

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

Consider wider consultation with GP representatives and the Integrated Care Board about AMHT communication options.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Trust has decided that we will complete a review to identify what changes to current practice are available as options and which of those options may add to the controls in place to prevent the risk of a GP not receiving an important communication from the AMHT in a timely way. We will not implement any changes without a clear understanding of the potential consequences. We will also consider a wider consultation with GP representatives and the Integrated Care Board in order to gain a broader understanding of the perspective of GPs.”

Source location

Response from Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 29 September 2025

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

Discuss Prevention of Future Deaths reports through the Regulation 28 Working Group and share resulting learning across national and regional NHS services.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I would also like to provide further assurances on the national NHS England work taking place around the Reports to Prevent Future Deaths. All reports received are discussed by the Regulation 28 Working Group, comprising Regional Medical Directors, and other clinical and quality colleagues from across the regions. This ensures that key learnings and insights around events, such as the sad death of Chris, are shared across the NHS at both a national and regional level and helps us to pay close attention to any emerging trends that may require further review and action.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 4 · response
Published 29 September 2025

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
2/3

Data last updated 7 September 2026