PFD report

Christopher Swain · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 14 Dec 2020•West Sussex

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
7

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
11

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 raised7

  1. Failure to provide clear and consistent requirements for hourly observations of patients in their rooms
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable patient observation arrangements
  2. Failure to maintain nursing and clinical records in accordance with policy
    Part of recurring concern: Incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable clinical and care records
  3. Failure to provide or record therapeutic engagement
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.8

  1. Action

    Conduct daily risk-assessment, huddle and clinical-notes audits with Ward Manager oversight from senior leadership.

    Stated by Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 6 January 2021.
  2. Action

    Review inpatient care plans, risk assessments and clinical documentation, and maintain compliance through audits and competency plans.

    Stated by Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 6 January 2021.
  3. Action

    Deliver staff safety days with training on clinical risk assessment, professional responsibility, accountability and clinical curiosity.

    Stated by Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 6 January 2021.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

  1. Position

    No policy changes were considered necessary because the incident resulted from staff failing to adhere to the existing Therapeutic Engagement and Observation Policy.

    Stated by Sussex Partnership 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

Failure to provide clear and consistent requirements for hourly observations of patients in their rooms

Wider context from the report

“a) During the evidence there was some confusion amongst staff as to what was required of them when carrying out observations patients in their rooms. There were different practices adopted by different staff and there appeared to be a custom of not entering a patient's room on the hourly observations so as not to disturb the patients. Sadly because of this practice it was unclear when Christopher had last been seen alive. Whilst the Trust has indicated that all staff have received further training in respect of this I am still not convinced that it is clear as to what is required by staff. b) Following the evidence the Jury concluded:- (a) that during Christopher’s time at Langley Green Hospital no formal review, care plan or adequate risk assessment was carried out in respect of his mental health. (b) that the nursing and clinical records were not kept in accordance with the trust health and record policy. (c) that here was no recorded evidence that any therapeutic engagement has taken place during the period of Christopher's short stay. Whilst the Trust have indicated that there has been a review of the professional conduct of all staff involved in this case this does not allay my concerns that these practices are limited to just those staff involved in this case. c) Failure to provide staff to accompany a sectioned patient to the emergency department of another Hospital for treatment for a physical condition. Requesting family member to undertake this role puts the patient and/or the family at risk ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable patient observation arrangements.

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 maintain nursing and clinical records in accordance with policy

Wider context from the report

“a) During the evidence there was some confusion amongst staff as to what was required of them when carrying out observations patients in their rooms. There were different practices adopted by different staff and there appeared to be a custom of not entering a patient's room on the hourly observations so as not to disturb the patients. Sadly because of this practice it was unclear when Christopher had last been seen alive. Whilst the Trust has indicated that all staff have received further training in respect of this I am still not convinced that it is clear as to what is required by staff. b) Following the evidence the Jury concluded:- (a) that during Christopher’s time at Langley Green Hospital no formal review, care plan or adequate risk assessment was carried out in respect of his mental health. (b) that the nursing and clinical records were not kept in accordance with the trust health and record policy. (c) that here was no recorded evidence that any therapeutic engagement has taken place during the period of Christopher's short stay. Whilst the Trust have indicated that there has been a review of the professional conduct of all staff involved in this case this does not allay my concerns that these practices are limited to just those staff involved in this case. c) Failure to provide staff to accompany a sectioned patient to the emergency department of another Hospital for treatment for a physical condition. Requesting family member to undertake this role puts the patient and/or the family at risk ”

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 provide or record therapeutic engagement

Wider context from the report

“a) During the evidence there was some confusion amongst staff as to what was required of them when carrying out observations patients in their rooms. There were different practices adopted by different staff and there appeared to be a custom of not entering a patient's room on the hourly observations so as not to disturb the patients. Sadly because of this practice it was unclear when Christopher had last been seen alive. Whilst the Trust has indicated that all staff have received further training in respect of this I am still not convinced that it is clear as to what is required by staff. b) Following the evidence the Jury concluded:- (a) that during Christopher’s time at Langley Green Hospital no formal review, care plan or adequate risk assessment was carried out in respect of his mental health. (b) that the nursing and clinical records were not kept in accordance with the trust health and record policy. (c) that here was no recorded evidence that any therapeutic engagement has taken place during the period of Christopher's short stay. Whilst the Trust have indicated that there has been a review of the professional conduct of all staff involved in this case this does not allay my concerns that these practices are limited to just those staff involved in this case. c) Failure to provide staff to accompany a sectioned patient to the emergency department of another Hospital for treatment for a physical condition. Requesting family member to undertake this role puts the patient and/or the family at risk ”

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 provide staff to accompany sectioned patients to another hospital for physical treatment

Wider context from the report

“a) During the evidence there was some confusion amongst staff as to what was required of them when carrying out observations patients in their rooms. There were different practices adopted by different staff and there appeared to be a custom of not entering a patient's room on the hourly observations so as not to disturb the patients. Sadly because of this practice it was unclear when Christopher had last been seen alive. Whilst the Trust has indicated that all staff have received further training in respect of this I am still not convinced that it is clear as to what is required by staff. b) Following the evidence the Jury concluded:- (a) that during Christopher’s time at Langley Green Hospital no formal review, care plan or adequate risk assessment was carried out in respect of his mental health. (b) that the nursing and clinical records were not kept in accordance with the trust health and record policy. (c) that here was no recorded evidence that any therapeutic engagement has taken place during the period of Christopher's short stay. Whilst the Trust have indicated that there has been a review of the professional conduct of all staff involved in this case this does not allay my concerns that these practices are limited to just those staff involved in this case. c) Failure to provide staff to accompany a sectioned patient to the emergency department of another Hospital for treatment for a physical condition. Requesting family member to undertake this role puts the patient and/or the family at risk ”

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

Lack of formal mental-health review

Wider context from the report

“a) During the evidence there was some confusion amongst staff as to what was required of them when carrying out observations patients in their rooms. There were different practices adopted by different staff and there appeared to be a custom of not entering a patient's room on the hourly observations so as not to disturb the patients. Sadly because of this practice it was unclear when Christopher had last been seen alive. Whilst the Trust has indicated that all staff have received further training in respect of this I am still not convinced that it is clear as to what is required by staff. b) Following the evidence the Jury concluded:- (a) that during Christopher’s time at Langley Green Hospital no formal review, care plan or adequate risk assessment was carried out in respect of his mental health. (b) that the nursing and clinical records were not kept in accordance with the trust health and record policy. (c) that here was no recorded evidence that any therapeutic engagement has taken place during the period of Christopher's short stay. Whilst the Trust have indicated that there has been a review of the professional conduct of all staff involved in this case this does not allay my concerns that these practices are limited to just those staff involved in this case. c) Failure to provide staff to accompany a sectioned patient to the emergency department of another Hospital for treatment for a physical condition. Requesting family member to undertake this role puts the patient and/or the family at risk ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to provide timely continuing mental health reviews and follow-up.

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 mental-health care planning

Wider context from the report

“a) During the evidence there was some confusion amongst staff as to what was required of them when carrying out observations patients in their rooms. There were different practices adopted by different staff and there appeared to be a custom of not entering a patient's room on the hourly observations so as not to disturb the patients. Sadly because of this practice it was unclear when Christopher had last been seen alive. Whilst the Trust has indicated that all staff have received further training in respect of this I am still not convinced that it is clear as to what is required by staff. b) Following the evidence the Jury concluded:- (a) that during Christopher’s time at Langley Green Hospital no formal review, care plan or adequate risk assessment was carried out in respect of his mental health. (b) that the nursing and clinical records were not kept in accordance with the trust health and record policy. (c) that here was no recorded evidence that any therapeutic engagement has taken place during the period of Christopher's short stay. Whilst the Trust have indicated that there has been a review of the professional conduct of all staff involved in this case this does not allay my concerns that these practices are limited to just those staff involved in this case. c) Failure to provide staff to accompany a sectioned patient to the emergency department of another Hospital for treatment for a physical condition. Requesting family member to undertake this role puts the patient and/or the family at risk ”

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 carry out adequate mental-health risk assessments

Wider context from the report

“a) During the evidence there was some confusion amongst staff as to what was required of them when carrying out observations patients in their rooms. There were different practices adopted by different staff and there appeared to be a custom of not entering a patient's room on the hourly observations so as not to disturb the patients. Sadly because of this practice it was unclear when Christopher had last been seen alive. Whilst the Trust has indicated that all staff have received further training in respect of this I am still not convinced that it is clear as to what is required by staff. b) Following the evidence the Jury concluded:- (a) that during Christopher’s time at Langley Green Hospital no formal review, care plan or adequate risk assessment was carried out in respect of his mental health. (b) that the nursing and clinical records were not kept in accordance with the trust health and record policy. (c) that here was no recorded evidence that any therapeutic engagement has taken place during the period of Christopher's short stay. Whilst the Trust have indicated that there has been a review of the professional conduct of all staff involved in this case this does not allay my concerns that these practices are limited to just those staff involved in this case. c) Failure to provide staff to accompany a sectioned patient to the emergency department of another Hospital for treatment for a physical condition. Requesting family member to undertake this role puts the patient and/or the family at risk ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate mental health risk assessment.

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

Conduct daily risk-assessment, huddle and clinical-notes audits with Ward Manager oversight from senior leadership.

Verbatim wording from the response

“There have, since Christopher's death, been daily risk assessment audit, daily huddles as well as notes audits by Ward Managers with oversight by the senior leadership team. These audits demonstrate as of December 2020 there is 100% adherence to the training in quality record keeping.”

Source location

2020-0284-Response-from-Sussex-Partnership-NHS-Foundation-Trust-Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 6 January 2021

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 inpatient care plans, risk assessments and clinical documentation, and maintain compliance through audits and competency plans.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The absence of clinical documentation for Christopher during his admission to Langley Green Hospital was not completed to an expected standard in accordance with Trust Policy. The Trust therefore completed a review of professional conduct of all the staff involved in Christopher’s care through HR processes and made referrals to relevant Regulatory bodies. The Langley Green Hospital Leadership team and Trust took immediate action to prevent reoccurrence of any non-compliance with Trust Policy including an immediate review of all care plans, risk assessments and clinical documentation. This has been maintained through audit and competency plans. Feedback was given to the whole team by the Trust Deputy Chief Nurse due to the seriousness and the immediate requirement to reflect and improve.”

Source location

2020-0284-Response-from-Sussex-Partnership-NHS-Foundation-Trust-Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 6 January 2021

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

Deliver staff safety days with training on clinical risk assessment, professional responsibility, accountability and clinical curiosity.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Staff were supported with safety days which commenced in December 2019 with specific training on Clinical Risk Assessment which focusses on professional responsibility, accountability, and clinical curiosity.”

Source location

2020-0284-Response-from-Sussex-Partnership-NHS-Foundation-Trust-Redacted
Page 4 · response
Published 6 January 2021

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

Refresh observation guidance and provide all staff with pocket reference cards supporting safe observation practice.

Verbatim wording from the response

“i. Guidance on observations was refreshed to support staff competency and implementation. All staff now have a pocket guide z card on conducting observations, this can be utilised as an aide memoire and reference guide.”

Source location

2020-0284-Response-from-Sussex-Partnership-NHS-Foundation-Trust-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 6 January 2021

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

Display easy-read observation guidance posters on all inpatient wards.

Verbatim wording from the response

“ii. An easy read poster guide on observations is also now available on all inpatient wards.”

Source location

2020-0284-Response-from-Sussex-Partnership-NHS-Foundation-Trust-Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 6 January 2021

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

Introduce a Trust-wide nursing competency framework and checklist requirements for documenting patient activity on observation charts.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A new competency framework has been developed and introduced Trust wide to strengthen our systems and processes which reinforces the requirement of stating on the observation chart, the activity of the patient rather than ticking to evidence their presence on the ward. Each member of the Trust inpatient Nursing Team has been required to individually complete the competency check list and such is now integral to the Bank and Agency staff induction checklists - Trust-wide. There is particular focus on this point included in the Eight Steps to Quality and Safety poster now present in the nursing offices across the Trust acute wards. The evidence of all Langley Green Hospital staff completion and ongoing adherence to the requirement for each staff member to complete the induction checklist, which includes observations, has already been submitted to the Court.”

Source location

2020-0284-Response-from-Sussex-Partnership-NHS-Foundation-Trust-Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 6 January 2021

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

Require inpatient staff to complete note-writing competency checks and monitor adherence through weekly audits and daily spot checks by Ward Managers.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Therefore, a review of all the professional conduct of the staff involved was completed at the time and managed through appropriate internal processes including HR and referrals to relevant Regulatory bodies. From a systems perspective, all Trust inpatient staff have completed competency checks in note writing and ongoing adherence is monitored by Ward Managers who check the content of patient notes weekly in audit form and complete spot checks on a daily basis.”

Source location

2020-0284-Response-from-Sussex-Partnership-NHS-Foundation-Trust-Redacted
Page 4 · response
Published 6 January 2021

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

Update mandatory observation training and competencies, requiring annual completion and induction completion before agency or bank staff shifts.

Verbatim wording from the response

“iii. Training and competencies on completing observations has been updated. This training is mandatory and must be completed annually and at induction for all agency and bank staff before they are able to commence a shift. There has been evidence submitted of staff completion and ongoing adherence to the requirement for each staff member to complete the induction checklist which includes observations. As of December 2020 there is a 100% compliance for staff who have completed training in Therapeutic Engagement and Observation competency assessments at Langley Green Hospital.”

Source location

2020-0284-Response-from-Sussex-Partnership-NHS-Foundation-Trust-Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 6 January 2021

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

No policy changes were considered necessary because the incident resulted from staff failing to adhere to the existing Therapeutic Engagement and Observation Policy.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In light of the clinical care review conducted in the wake of Christopher’s death, the Trust reconsidered its Therapeutic Engagement and Observation Policy. I and my Clinical, Operational and Service Directors were satisfied that no changes to Policy were required. The issue that arose in Christopher’s care was quite clearly, a lack of adherence to Trust Policy by staff. To prevent reoccurrence of non-compliance with Trust Policy within Langley Green Hospital and elsewhere within the Trust, the following actions were taken across all inpatient services:”

Source location

2020-0284-Response-from-Sussex-Partnership-NHS-Foundation-Trust-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 6 January 2021

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

    Conduct weekly Ward Manager audits to ensure detained patients granted section 17 leave do not leave hospital unaccompanied.

    Stated by Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 6 January 2021.
  2. 2

    Share learning and actions from the serious incident review across the Trust.

    Stated by Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 6 January 2021.
  3. 3

    Provide all substantive, bank and agency staff with access to Carenotes and require contemporaneous recording of observations.

    Stated by Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 6 January 2021.

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 weekly Ward Manager audits to ensure detained patients granted section 17 leave do not leave hospital unaccompanied.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I am assured that the weekly audits being conducted by Ward Managers are ensuring that no patient leaves the Hospital unaccompanied if they are granted section 17 leave for any purpose.”

Source location

2020-0284-Response-from-Sussex-Partnership-NHS-Foundation-Trust-Redacted
Page 5 · response
Published 6 January 2021

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

Share learning and actions from the serious incident review across the Trust.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Christopher did not receive the standard of care we expect in the hospital. The clinical team immediately undertook an investigation into the events leading up to Christopher’s death and identified a number of actions and learning that has been shared and cascaded within Langley Green Hospital and across our acute inpatient services. In order to provide you assurance that service improvements have indeed been made Trust-wide, and not just at Langley Green Hospital, my Operational and Service Directors within all inpatient settings have provided me with a full update on the improvements the Trust has made in regards to the issues that you raised. In response to the matters of concern you raise therefore, I shall address each point in turn, adopting your numbering below:”

Source location

2020-0284-Response-from-Sussex-Partnership-NHS-Foundation-Trust-Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 6 January 2021

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

Provide all substantive, bank and agency staff with access to Carenotes and require contemporaneous recording of observations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“iv. All substantive, bank and Agency staff have access to Carenotes. All observations are now contemporaneously recorded.”

Source location

2020-0284-Response-from-Sussex-Partnership-NHS-Foundation-Trust-Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 6 January 2021

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