PFD report

Dudley Vincent Brown · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 27 Jun 2018•Inner North London

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
2

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
4

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 raised5

  1. Delays in AMHPS referral and assessment across weekends and bank holidays
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable urgent mental health referral and assessment pathways
  2. Delays in AMHPS assessment caused by unavailable property information
  3. Failure to arrange welfare checks pending mental health assessment
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to conduct required welfare checks on people in distressPart of recurring concern: Unreliable interim mental health support during care transitions
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.2

  1. Action

    Improve staff and manager fluency in routes and response expectations for general mental health and Mental Health Act assessments.

    Stated by East London NHS Foundation Trust and London Borough of HackneyStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 14 August 2018.
  2. Action

    Review the AMHP referral risk-assessment process, including timely collection of information needed to progress cases.

    Stated by East London NHS Foundation Trust and London Borough of HackneyStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 14 August 2018.

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 AMHPS referral and assessment across weekends and bank holidays

Wider context from the report

“(4) Mr Brown’s referral to the AMHPS and subsequent assessment was delayed due to intervening weekends (including a 3 day bank holiday weekend). ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable urgent mental health referral and assessment 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

Delays in AMHPS assessment caused by unavailable property information

Wider context from the report

“(5) Mr Brown’s assessment by the AMHPS team was delayed due to the need for information regarding the nature of his property being required by the Metropolitan Police as part of their risk assessment. ”

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 arrange welfare checks pending mental health assessment

Wider context from the report

“(2) Mr Brown’s care package was withdrawn on 27 December 2017. No arrangements were put into place for Mr Brown’s welfare to be checked in the period pending a mental health assessment. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to conduct required welfare checks on people in distress; Unreliable interim mental health support during care transitions.

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

Unclear allocation of responsibility for initiating emergency procedures under the Mental Health Act

Wider context from the report

“(1) Following the incident on 29 December 2017, the incident was reported to police the same day. The social work team leader dealing with the case was of the view that the police were the best placed to initiate emergency procedures under the Mental Health Act. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unclear responsibility for Mental Health Act emergency procedures.

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

Incorrect understanding of referral routes to the Approved Mental Health Practitioner Service

Wider context from the report

“(3) The social work team leader dealing with this case was under the impression that referrals to the Approved Mental Health Practitioner Service (AMPHS) had to be made by a GP. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable mental health referral pathways.

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

Improve staff and manager fluency in routes and response expectations for general mental health and Mental Health Act assessments.

Verbatim wording from the response

“This is a joint response between the Council and East London Foundation Trust. We acknowledge and accept your recommendations in this case, and have worked together to address the concerns, by way of formulating and implementing a multi-agency action plan which is attached for your reference.”

Source location

2018-0211-Response-by-Hackney-Borough-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 14 August 2018

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 AMHP referral risk-assessment process, including timely collection of information needed to progress cases.

Verbatim wording from the response

“This is a joint response between the Council and East London Foundation Trust. We acknowledge and accept your recommendations in this case, and have worked together to address the concerns, by way of formulating and implementing a multi-agency action plan which is attached for your reference.”

Source location

2018-0211-Response-by-Hackney-Borough-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 14 August 2018

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

    Share the circumstances and action plan with the safeguarding adults review subgroup to broaden partnership learning and assess review criteria.

    Stated by East London NHS Foundation Trust and London Borough of HackneyStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 August 2018.
  2. 2

    Review the escalation pathway for refusals of commissioned needs-based care packages.

    Stated by East London NHS Foundation Trust and London Borough of HackneyStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 14 August 2018.

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 the circumstances and action plan with the safeguarding adults review subgroup to broaden partnership learning and assess review criteria.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As an additional assurance, the council and East London Foundation Trust have shared the circumstances and action plan with the City & Hackney Safeguarding Adults Board via its Safeguarding Adults Review Sub-Group in order to clarify if the circumstances meet the criteria for a Safeguarding Adults Review, and, if not, then to ensure that the identified learning points are shared across the partnership.”

Source location

2018-0211-Response-by-Hackney-Borough-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 14 August 2018

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 escalation pathway for refusals of commissioned needs-based care packages.

Verbatim wording from the response

“This is a joint response between the Council and East London Foundation Trust. We acknowledge and accept your recommendations in this case, and have worked together to address the concerns, by way of formulating and implementing a multi-agency action plan which is attached for your reference.”

Source location

2018-0211-Response-by-Hackney-Borough-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 14 August 2018

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
2/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026