Lester John STACEY · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 10 Mar 2017•Staffordshire South

Published report and response evidence

This report’s concerns and statements found in recipients’ published responses. Statements are included even where no link to an individual concern is recorded. A link shows an evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
0

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
0

Described in responses

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

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 visit and re-engage people who do not respond to appointment contacts

Wider context from the report

“The deceased was admitted as an In-patient under S2 Mental Health Act from 16 May 2016 to 19 May 2016. He was discharged without being given follow up appointments. He subsequently failed to respond to telephone calls and letters to attend appointments. He was therefore discharged from the service on the 21 June 2016. There was no attempt to visit him during this period to try and re-engage him with services. He may not have received the correspondence inviting him for appointments because he was away on holiday for some of that period. He might have benefitted from having pre-arranged appointments prior to his discharge. His medication was changed during his last admission and thereafter does not appear to have been monitored. The deceased was said to have lacked confidence in the new medication and may not have been totally compliant. Family perception was that he responded less well to the changed medication. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to maintain follow-up of patients who disengage from care; Failure to provide timely and adequate follow-up after discharge.

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 monitor medication after changes during admission

Wider context from the report

“The deceased was admitted as an In-patient under S2 Mental Health Act from 16 May 2016 to 19 May 2016. He was discharged without being given follow up appointments. He subsequently failed to respond to telephone calls and letters to attend appointments. He was therefore discharged from the service on the 21 June 2016. There was no attempt to visit him during this period to try and re-engage him with services. He may not have received the correspondence inviting him for appointments because he was away on holiday for some of that period. He might have benefitted from having pre-arranged appointments prior to his discharge. His medication was changed during his last admission and thereafter does not appear to have been monitored. The deceased was said to have lacked confidence in the new medication and may not have been totally compliant. Family perception was that he responded less well to the changed medication. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable implementation of medication changes.

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 follow-up appointments before discharge

Wider context from the report

“The deceased was admitted as an In-patient under S2 Mental Health Act from 16 May 2016 to 19 May 2016. He was discharged without being given follow up appointments. He subsequently failed to respond to telephone calls and letters to attend appointments. He was therefore discharged from the service on the 21 June 2016. There was no attempt to visit him during this period to try and re-engage him with services. He may not have received the correspondence inviting him for appointments because he was away on holiday for some of that period. He might have benefitted from having pre-arranged appointments prior to his discharge. His medication was changed during his last admission and thereafter does not appear to have been monitored. The deceased was said to have lacked confidence in the new medication and may not have been totally compliant. Family perception was that he responded less well to the changed medication. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure safe discharge planning for inpatient mental health admissions; Failure to provide timely and adequate follow-up after discharge; Unreliable arrangement and communication of patient appointments 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.