PFD report

Piotr Grzegorz Kucharz · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 24 Nov 2015•Blackpool and the Fylde

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
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
6

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. Failure to clearly require physical entry into patients’ rooms to check the environment during observations
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable observation of patients in specialist mental health units
  2. Failure to clearly require verbal engagement during patient observations
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable observation of patients in specialist mental health unitsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable patient observation arrangements
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

    Issue an internal patient safety alert reminding inpatient services of the current observation policy and procedure.

    Stated by Lancashire & South Cumbria NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 24 November 2015.
  2. Action

    Develop and implement a revised observation policy and procedure by 31 March 2016.

    Stated by Lancashire & South Cumbria NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 24 November 2015.
  3. Action

    Review the observation policy and procedure using learning from serious incidents and national best practice.

    Stated by Lancashire & South Cumbria NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 24 November 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

Failure to clearly require physical entry into patients’ rooms to check the environment during observations

Wider context from the report

“1. Piotr Kucharz was a Polish gentleman who commenced living in the United Kingdom in April 2014. At the time he sought to strangle himself with a cord he was an informal patient at the Conway Ward at Parkwood, a mental health facility in Blackpool. At his inquest, evidence was heard from a number of members of staff as regards what constitutes an effective observation. He was the subject of what were described as Safety and Security [SAS] and general observations, the completion of which was the responsibility of a number of members of care staff. The evidence heard from staff raised an area of concern because that evidence indicated quite clearly that there was a lack of consistency and clarity as regards what constitutes an effective observation. An independent expert witness indicated in a report that he completed prior to the inquest that he felt custom and practice was such that some staff were merely checking on the “whereabouts” of the patient. Some staff felt that they were expected to enter the room of the patient and to try to engage with him and to check the room environment for anything that may pose a risk to him. Others felt that whether they were expected to actually enter a patient’s room to conduct the observation could vary depending on the level of risk a particular patient presented, in other words that they felt they had an element of discretion as regards whether they entered the room. This evidence appeared to be in contrast to a Trust policy. In the case of Piotr Kucharz, as can be seen above he had limited understanding of English, and a number of staff gave evidence that he remained in his room throughout his time on the Conway Ward and did not wish to engage with them. Nevertheless, the author of the Trust’s Sudden Untoward Incident Review document agreed that there was no such discretion and that staff ought to enter the room to complete and effective observation. At the conclusion to the inquest I expressed the view that I was concerned that there is a risk of future deaths because staff remain unclear about what amounts to an effective observation, and more specifically whether there are circumstances which may allow them to refrain from verbally engaging with a patient, or from physically entering a patient’s room to check the environment, and that should that lack of consistency and clarity prevail, other patients may be placed at risk as a result of inadequate observations. For the avoidance of doubt, I confirm that I am of the opinion that the above concern remains valid despite the fact that further to Piotr Kucharz’s death the provision of mental health care for patient’s such as Piotr has moved from the Conway Ward at Parkwood to another facility within my jurisdiction at which members of staff who were working at the time of Piotr’s death continue to be employed in a similar capacity. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable observation of patients in specialist mental health units.

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 clearly require verbal engagement during patient observations

Wider context from the report

“1. Piotr Kucharz was a Polish gentleman who commenced living in the United Kingdom in April 2014. At the time he sought to strangle himself with a cord he was an informal patient at the Conway Ward at Parkwood, a mental health facility in Blackpool. At his inquest, evidence was heard from a number of members of staff as regards what constitutes an effective observation. He was the subject of what were described as Safety and Security [SAS] and general observations, the completion of which was the responsibility of a number of members of care staff. The evidence heard from staff raised an area of concern because that evidence indicated quite clearly that there was a lack of consistency and clarity as regards what constitutes an effective observation. An independent expert witness indicated in a report that he completed prior to the inquest that he felt custom and practice was such that some staff were merely checking on the “whereabouts” of the patient. Some staff felt that they were expected to enter the room of the patient and to try to engage with him and to check the room environment for anything that may pose a risk to him. Others felt that whether they were expected to actually enter a patient’s room to conduct the observation could vary depending on the level of risk a particular patient presented, in other words that they felt they had an element of discretion as regards whether they entered the room. This evidence appeared to be in contrast to a Trust policy. In the case of Piotr Kucharz, as can be seen above he had limited understanding of English, and a number of staff gave evidence that he remained in his room throughout his time on the Conway Ward and did not wish to engage with them. Nevertheless, the author of the Trust’s Sudden Untoward Incident Review document agreed that there was no such discretion and that staff ought to enter the room to complete and effective observation. At the conclusion to the inquest I expressed the view that I was concerned that there is a risk of future deaths because staff remain unclear about what amounts to an effective observation, and more specifically whether there are circumstances which may allow them to refrain from verbally engaging with a patient, or from physically entering a patient’s room to check the environment, and that should that lack of consistency and clarity prevail, other patients may be placed at risk as a result of inadequate observations. For the avoidance of doubt, I confirm that I am of the opinion that the above concern remains valid despite the fact that further to Piotr Kucharz’s death the provision of mental health care for patient’s such as Piotr has moved from the Conway Ward at Parkwood to another facility within my jurisdiction at which members of staff who were working at the time of Piotr’s death continue to be employed in a similar capacity. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable observation of patients in specialist mental health units; Unreliable patient observation arrangements.

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

Issue an internal patient safety alert reminding inpatient services of the current observation policy and procedure.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In the interim, until this new policy and procedure is developed and implemented, an internal patient safety alert has been issued to remind staff of the current policy and procedure. This alert was sent to all inpatient services across the Trust.”

Source location

2015-0465-Response
Page 2 · response
Published 24 November 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

Develop and implement a revised observation policy and procedure by 31 March 2016.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Trust is also in the process of reviewing the observation policy and procedure. We are taking into account the learning from previous serious incidents and national best practice. This review is currently underway and we will be developing and implementing a revised observation policy and procedure. The new observation policy and procedure will be implemented by 31 March 2016.”

Source location

2015-0465-Response
Page 2 · response
Published 24 November 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

Review the observation policy and procedure using learning from serious incidents and national best practice.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Trust is also in the process of reviewing the observation policy and procedure. We are taking into account the learning from previous serious incidents and national best practice. This review is currently underway and we will be developing and implementing a revised observation policy and procedure. The new observation policy and procedure will be implemented by 31 March 2016.”

Source location

2015-0465-Response
Page 2 · response
Published 24 November 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.3

  1. 1

    Replace the previous safety profile with standard and enhanced clinical risk assessment tools in the Electronic Care Record.

    Stated by Lancashire & South Cumbria NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 24 November 2015.
  2. 2

    Train inpatient staff to use the new clinical risk assessment tools and 5P’s formulation model.

    Stated by Lancashire & South Cumbria NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 24 November 2015.
  3. 3

    Conduct an external review of the effectiveness and implementation of the new clinical risk assessment tool and policy.

    Stated by Lancashire & South Cumbria NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 24 November 2015.

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

Replace the previous safety profile with standard and enhanced clinical risk assessment tools in the Electronic Care Record.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Shortly before Mr Kucharz died the Trust was in the process of revising its clinical risk assessment tool and policy. New standard and enhanced risk assessment tools, which sit in the Electronic Care Record (ECR), were developed by a multi-disciplinary group of clinicians. From March 2015 these tools replaced the previous Standard Safety Profile which was in use at the time of Mr Kucharz’s death. The aim of the new risk assessment tools are to improve the quality of the clinical risk assessment conducted by staff, to promote better collaboration with patients, more structured clinical risk assessment and more robust clinical risk formulations and risk management plans. This helps staff understand better the risks that patients pose to themselves and others, vulnerability and any safeguarding risks and therefore the level and type of support they need to stay safe including observations.”

Source location

2015-0465-Response
Page 1 · response
Published 24 November 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

Train inpatient staff to use the new clinical risk assessment tools and 5P’s formulation model.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Since March 2015 the Trust has been training in-patient staff to use the new risk assessment tools and formulation model. This training supports staff in using the 5P’s model (presenting needs, predisposing factors, precipitating factors, perpetuating factors and protective factors).”

Source location

2015-0465-Response
Page 2 · response
Published 24 November 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 an external review of the effectiveness and implementation of the new clinical risk assessment tool and policy.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We are planning an external review into the effectiveness of this new clinical risk assessment tool and policy, to be completed in April 2016 once we are twelve months into the usage of the new tool. This will provide us with robust assurance into the implementation and effectiveness of this new approach.”

Source location

2015-0465-Response
Page 2 · response
Published 24 November 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
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026