PFD report

Jeff David ANTWIS · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 13 Nov 2017•Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin

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
6

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
14

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 raised6

  1. Failure to recognize suicidal ideation that may be masked by autistic spectrum conditions
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to account for autistic presentation in mental health assessment and care
  2. Lack of a mechanism for referring cases back to the consultant psychiatrist
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to provide effective consultant psychiatrist oversight in mental health care
  3. Failure to provide an urgent medical review after suicidal ideation was identified
    Part of recurring concern: Delays in consultant review of patientsPart of recurring concern: Failure to provide effective consultant psychiatrist oversight in mental health care
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

    Implement a standardised validated clinical risk assessment tool and pathway for responding to changes in risk.

    Stated by Midlands Partnership University NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 15 February 2018.
  2. Action

    Establish clear care pathways enabling case-holding clinicians to obtain additional psychology, family therapy and consultant psychiatry support.

    Stated by Midlands Partnership University NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 15 February 2018.
  3. Action

    Establish escalation processes within clinical pathways to obtain urgent psychiatric reviews when concerns arise.

    Stated by Midlands Partnership University NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 15 February 2018.

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

  1. Position

    Shropshire Community Health NHS Trust was responsible for investigating care because it provided CAMHS services in Shropshire at the relevant time.

    Stated by Midlands Partnership University NHS Foundation TrustRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.

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 recognize suicidal ideation that may be masked by autistic spectrum conditions

Wider context from the report

“(1) Following an urgent referral by Jeff’s GP to (the then) Shropshire CAMHS on the 10th January 2017 a timely response was made with an initial appointment with a mental health practitioner taking place on the 12th. A further appointment was arranged for the 25th January (an earlier date clashed with an existing medical appointment) and in the meantime Jeff was given a miracle question to complete. (2) Jeff answered the miracle question indicating that he wished to die. He passed it to his mother who immediately contacted the mental health practitioner who in turn referred it and the initial assessment to a consultant psychiatrist for review. The consultant psychiatrist did not consider the matter urgent and arranged for a routine medical review for the 17th March 2017. (3) At the second meeting on the 25th January 2017 Jeff and his mother were informed of the appointment for the 17th March 2017. Jeff’s mother immediately raised concerns and asked for it to be brought forward. She was told she would have to write in and make a complaint. This was a time sensitive situation adding to the problem without resolving it. (4) On the 30th January 2017 Jeff killed himself on the railway line. (5) Independent expert evidence from a child and adolescent consultant psychiatrist indicated that Jeff should have been offered an urgent medical review appointment for the 27th January 2017 (i.e. within 7 days of the internal referral to the consultant psychiatrist) and not, as a routine appointment, the 17th March 2017. It cannot be said that such an earlier appointment would have addressed Jeff’s problems and altered his wish to die but it is possible that earlier intervention may have lifted his spirits and not, according to his mother, ‘wilted’. It undoubtedly would have helped and at least been an earlier step in seeking to help Jeff. (6) Other matters of concern arose from the evidence. The mental health practitioner: a) Was aware of the deliberate self-harm protocol but not its content. b) Carried out a risk assessment on a subjective basis without reference to any known definition e.g. serious or significant. c) Had no mechanism for referring back to the consultant psychiatrist appointment, whether she agreed with the request or not. (7) As stated Jeff had a diagnosis of asperger’s syndrome with autistic spectrum disorder. Concerns were raised to what extent these conditions have may have masked Jeff’s suicidal ideation on presentation and to what extent, if it is the case, they were recognized. (8) From evidence given at the inquest it is clear that the provision of child and adolescent mental health service is in transition, having moved from Shropshire CAMHS to part of South Staffordshire and Shropshire NHS Trust. Certain actions are already being taken and these concerns are raised so that a holistic approach can be taken and fed in to what is already an ongoing wider review. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to account for autistic presentation in mental health assessment and 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

Lack of a mechanism for referring cases back to the consultant psychiatrist

Wider context from the report

“(1) Following an urgent referral by Jeff’s GP to (the then) Shropshire CAMHS on the 10th January 2017 a timely response was made with an initial appointment with a mental health practitioner taking place on the 12th. A further appointment was arranged for the 25th January (an earlier date clashed with an existing medical appointment) and in the meantime Jeff was given a miracle question to complete. (2) Jeff answered the miracle question indicating that he wished to die. He passed it to his mother who immediately contacted the mental health practitioner who in turn referred it and the initial assessment to a consultant psychiatrist for review. The consultant psychiatrist did not consider the matter urgent and arranged for a routine medical review for the 17th March 2017. (3) At the second meeting on the 25th January 2017 Jeff and his mother were informed of the appointment for the 17th March 2017. Jeff’s mother immediately raised concerns and asked for it to be brought forward. She was told she would have to write in and make a complaint. This was a time sensitive situation adding to the problem without resolving it. (4) On the 30th January 2017 Jeff killed himself on the railway line. (5) Independent expert evidence from a child and adolescent consultant psychiatrist indicated that Jeff should have been offered an urgent medical review appointment for the 27th January 2017 (i.e. within 7 days of the internal referral to the consultant psychiatrist) and not, as a routine appointment, the 17th March 2017. It cannot be said that such an earlier appointment would have addressed Jeff’s problems and altered his wish to die but it is possible that earlier intervention may have lifted his spirits and not, according to his mother, ‘wilted’. It undoubtedly would have helped and at least been an earlier step in seeking to help Jeff. (6) Other matters of concern arose from the evidence. The mental health practitioner: a) Was aware of the deliberate self-harm protocol but not its content. b) Carried out a risk assessment on a subjective basis without reference to any known definition e.g. serious or significant. c) Had no mechanism for referring back to the consultant psychiatrist appointment, whether she agreed with the request or not. (7) As stated Jeff had a diagnosis of asperger’s syndrome with autistic spectrum disorder. Concerns were raised to what extent these conditions have may have masked Jeff’s suicidal ideation on presentation and to what extent, if it is the case, they were recognized. (8) From evidence given at the inquest it is clear that the provision of child and adolescent mental health service is in transition, having moved from Shropshire CAMHS to part of South Staffordshire and Shropshire NHS Trust. Certain actions are already being taken and these concerns are raised so that a holistic approach can be taken and fed in to what is already an ongoing wider review. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to provide effective consultant psychiatrist oversight in mental health 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 to provide an urgent medical review after suicidal ideation was identified

Wider context from the report

“(1) Following an urgent referral by Jeff’s GP to (the then) Shropshire CAMHS on the 10th January 2017 a timely response was made with an initial appointment with a mental health practitioner taking place on the 12th. A further appointment was arranged for the 25th January (an earlier date clashed with an existing medical appointment) and in the meantime Jeff was given a miracle question to complete. (2) Jeff answered the miracle question indicating that he wished to die. He passed it to his mother who immediately contacted the mental health practitioner who in turn referred it and the initial assessment to a consultant psychiatrist for review. The consultant psychiatrist did not consider the matter urgent and arranged for a routine medical review for the 17th March 2017. (3) At the second meeting on the 25th January 2017 Jeff and his mother were informed of the appointment for the 17th March 2017. Jeff’s mother immediately raised concerns and asked for it to be brought forward. She was told she would have to write in and make a complaint. This was a time sensitive situation adding to the problem without resolving it. (4) On the 30th January 2017 Jeff killed himself on the railway line. (5) Independent expert evidence from a child and adolescent consultant psychiatrist indicated that Jeff should have been offered an urgent medical review appointment for the 27th January 2017 (i.e. within 7 days of the internal referral to the consultant psychiatrist) and not, as a routine appointment, the 17th March 2017. It cannot be said that such an earlier appointment would have addressed Jeff’s problems and altered his wish to die but it is possible that earlier intervention may have lifted his spirits and not, according to his mother, ‘wilted’. It undoubtedly would have helped and at least been an earlier step in seeking to help Jeff. (6) Other matters of concern arose from the evidence. The mental health practitioner: a) Was aware of the deliberate self-harm protocol but not its content. b) Carried out a risk assessment on a subjective basis without reference to any known definition e.g. serious or significant. c) Had no mechanism for referring back to the consultant psychiatrist appointment, whether she agreed with the request or not. (7) As stated Jeff had a diagnosis of asperger’s syndrome with autistic spectrum disorder. Concerns were raised to what extent these conditions have may have masked Jeff’s suicidal ideation on presentation and to what extent, if it is the case, they were recognized. (8) From evidence given at the inquest it is clear that the provision of child and adolescent mental health service is in transition, having moved from Shropshire CAMHS to part of South Staffordshire and Shropshire NHS Trust. Certain actions are already being taken and these concerns are raised so that a holistic approach can be taken and fed in to what is already an ongoing wider review. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Delays in consultant review of patients; Failure to provide effective consultant psychiatrist oversight in mental health 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

Subjective risk assessments without reference to defined risk criteria

Wider context from the report

“(1) Following an urgent referral by Jeff’s GP to (the then) Shropshire CAMHS on the 10th January 2017 a timely response was made with an initial appointment with a mental health practitioner taking place on the 12th. A further appointment was arranged for the 25th January (an earlier date clashed with an existing medical appointment) and in the meantime Jeff was given a miracle question to complete. (2) Jeff answered the miracle question indicating that he wished to die. He passed it to his mother who immediately contacted the mental health practitioner who in turn referred it and the initial assessment to a consultant psychiatrist for review. The consultant psychiatrist did not consider the matter urgent and arranged for a routine medical review for the 17th March 2017. (3) At the second meeting on the 25th January 2017 Jeff and his mother were informed of the appointment for the 17th March 2017. Jeff’s mother immediately raised concerns and asked for it to be brought forward. She was told she would have to write in and make a complaint. This was a time sensitive situation adding to the problem without resolving it. (4) On the 30th January 2017 Jeff killed himself on the railway line. (5) Independent expert evidence from a child and adolescent consultant psychiatrist indicated that Jeff should have been offered an urgent medical review appointment for the 27th January 2017 (i.e. within 7 days of the internal referral to the consultant psychiatrist) and not, as a routine appointment, the 17th March 2017. It cannot be said that such an earlier appointment would have addressed Jeff’s problems and altered his wish to die but it is possible that earlier intervention may have lifted his spirits and not, according to his mother, ‘wilted’. It undoubtedly would have helped and at least been an earlier step in seeking to help Jeff. (6) Other matters of concern arose from the evidence. The mental health practitioner: a) Was aware of the deliberate self-harm protocol but not its content. b) Carried out a risk assessment on a subjective basis without reference to any known definition e.g. serious or significant. c) Had no mechanism for referring back to the consultant psychiatrist appointment, whether she agreed with the request or not. (7) As stated Jeff had a diagnosis of asperger’s syndrome with autistic spectrum disorder. Concerns were raised to what extent these conditions have may have masked Jeff’s suicidal ideation on presentation and to what extent, if it is the case, they were recognized. (8) From evidence given at the inquest it is clear that the provision of child and adolescent mental health service is in transition, having moved from Shropshire CAMHS to part of South Staffordshire and Shropshire NHS Trust. Certain actions are already being taken and these concerns are raised so that a holistic approach can be taken and fed in to what is already an ongoing wider review. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate mental health risk assessment.

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 an effective route for urgently escalating concerns about a delayed mental health appointment

Wider context from the report

“(1) Following an urgent referral by Jeff’s GP to (the then) Shropshire CAMHS on the 10th January 2017 a timely response was made with an initial appointment with a mental health practitioner taking place on the 12th. A further appointment was arranged for the 25th January (an earlier date clashed with an existing medical appointment) and in the meantime Jeff was given a miracle question to complete. (2) Jeff answered the miracle question indicating that he wished to die. He passed it to his mother who immediately contacted the mental health practitioner who in turn referred it and the initial assessment to a consultant psychiatrist for review. The consultant psychiatrist did not consider the matter urgent and arranged for a routine medical review for the 17th March 2017. (3) At the second meeting on the 25th January 2017 Jeff and his mother were informed of the appointment for the 17th March 2017. Jeff’s mother immediately raised concerns and asked for it to be brought forward. She was told she would have to write in and make a complaint. This was a time sensitive situation adding to the problem without resolving it. (4) On the 30th January 2017 Jeff killed himself on the railway line. (5) Independent expert evidence from a child and adolescent consultant psychiatrist indicated that Jeff should have been offered an urgent medical review appointment for the 27th January 2017 (i.e. within 7 days of the internal referral to the consultant psychiatrist) and not, as a routine appointment, the 17th March 2017. It cannot be said that such an earlier appointment would have addressed Jeff’s problems and altered his wish to die but it is possible that earlier intervention may have lifted his spirits and not, according to his mother, ‘wilted’. It undoubtedly would have helped and at least been an earlier step in seeking to help Jeff. (6) Other matters of concern arose from the evidence. The mental health practitioner: a) Was aware of the deliberate self-harm protocol but not its content. b) Carried out a risk assessment on a subjective basis without reference to any known definition e.g. serious or significant. c) Had no mechanism for referring back to the consultant psychiatrist appointment, whether she agreed with the request or not. (7) As stated Jeff had a diagnosis of asperger’s syndrome with autistic spectrum disorder. Concerns were raised to what extent these conditions have may have masked Jeff’s suicidal ideation on presentation and to what extent, if it is the case, they were recognized. (8) From evidence given at the inquest it is clear that the provision of child and adolescent mental health service is in transition, having moved from Shropshire CAMHS to part of South Staffordshire and Shropshire NHS Trust. Certain actions are already being taken and these concerns are raised so that a holistic approach can be taken and fed in to what is already an ongoing wider review. ”

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 knowledge of the deliberate self-harm protocol

Wider context from the report

“(1) Following an urgent referral by Jeff’s GP to (the then) Shropshire CAMHS on the 10th January 2017 a timely response was made with an initial appointment with a mental health practitioner taking place on the 12th. A further appointment was arranged for the 25th January (an earlier date clashed with an existing medical appointment) and in the meantime Jeff was given a miracle question to complete. (2) Jeff answered the miracle question indicating that he wished to die. He passed it to his mother who immediately contacted the mental health practitioner who in turn referred it and the initial assessment to a consultant psychiatrist for review. The consultant psychiatrist did not consider the matter urgent and arranged for a routine medical review for the 17th March 2017. (3) At the second meeting on the 25th January 2017 Jeff and his mother were informed of the appointment for the 17th March 2017. Jeff’s mother immediately raised concerns and asked for it to be brought forward. She was told she would have to write in and make a complaint. This was a time sensitive situation adding to the problem without resolving it. (4) On the 30th January 2017 Jeff killed himself on the railway line. (5) Independent expert evidence from a child and adolescent consultant psychiatrist indicated that Jeff should have been offered an urgent medical review appointment for the 27th January 2017 (i.e. within 7 days of the internal referral to the consultant psychiatrist) and not, as a routine appointment, the 17th March 2017. It cannot be said that such an earlier appointment would have addressed Jeff’s problems and altered his wish to die but it is possible that earlier intervention may have lifted his spirits and not, according to his mother, ‘wilted’. It undoubtedly would have helped and at least been an earlier step in seeking to help Jeff. (6) Other matters of concern arose from the evidence. The mental health practitioner: a) Was aware of the deliberate self-harm protocol but not its content. b) Carried out a risk assessment on a subjective basis without reference to any known definition e.g. serious or significant. c) Had no mechanism for referring back to the consultant psychiatrist appointment, whether she agreed with the request or not. (7) As stated Jeff had a diagnosis of asperger’s syndrome with autistic spectrum disorder. Concerns were raised to what extent these conditions have may have masked Jeff’s suicidal ideation on presentation and to what extent, if it is the case, they were recognized. (8) From evidence given at the inquest it is clear that the provision of child and adolescent mental health service is in transition, having moved from Shropshire CAMHS to part of South Staffordshire and Shropshire NHS Trust. Certain actions are already being taken and these concerns are raised so that a holistic approach can be taken and fed in to what is already an ongoing wider review. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Implement a standardised validated clinical risk assessment tool and pathway for responding to changes in risk.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• A single point of access to the service was implemented on 4th Dec 2017 to ensure that young people’s needs can be appropriately identified at the point of referral and an appropriate, timely response provided (point 1 and 7). Introduction of standardised validated clinical risk assessment tool with associated pathway to enable timely robust response to changes in risk level (Also points 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7)”

Source location

2017-0392-Response
Page 3 · response
Published 15 February 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

Establish clear care pathways enabling case-holding clinicians to obtain additional psychology, family therapy and consultant psychiatry support.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• When a young person is accepted within the service, a clear pathway for their care is identified, this enables the case holding clinician to access additional support for example, psychology, family therapy consultant psychiatry (Also points 2, 3, 6 & 7) Healios are delivering one therapeutic interventions as part of core MH service (point 8).”

Source location

2017-0392-Response
Page 3 · response
Published 15 February 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

Establish escalation processes within clinical pathways to obtain urgent psychiatric reviews when concerns arise.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Escalation processes have been agreed within clinical pathways so that urgent psychiatric reviews can be obtained when concerns are raised (points 2, 4, 5 & 7)”

Source location

2017-0392-Response
Page 3 · response
Published 15 February 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 practitioners’ caseloads and open cases to ensure appropriate care plans, risk assessments and recording of need levels.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• We have commenced reviewing the caseloads of all practitioners within the service to ensure that all young people within the service have appropriate care plans and risk assessments in place (points 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7) this will be completed by 31st March 2018.”

Source location

2017-0392-Response
Page 3 · response
Published 15 February 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

Reserve one weekly appointment in each consultant psychiatrist job plan for urgent assessments.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• One assessment appointment each week is ring fenced for urgent assessments in each Consultant Child & Adolescent Psychiatrist job plan to ensure that young people presenting in crisis are provided with urgent psychiatric review (points 2, 4, 5 & 7)”

Source location

2017-0392-Response
Page 3 · response
Published 15 February 2018

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

Shropshire Community Health NHS Trust was responsible for investigating care because it provided CAMHS services in Shropshire at the relevant time.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As identified in your letter South Staffordshire and Shropshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust were not providing CAMHS services within Shropshire at the time of Jeff’s death therefore South Staffordshire and Shropshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust were not in a position to have carried out an investigation into the care of Jeff prior to his death. The Serious Incident Investigation presented at the inquest was carried out by Shropshire Community Health NHS Trust who were providing CAMHS services in Shropshire in January 2017.”

Source location

2017-0392-Response
Page 1 · response
Published 15 February 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.9

  1. 1

    Make Kooth and Children’s Society open-access services available to young people, families and professionals.

    Stated by Midlands Partnership University NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 15 February 2018.
  2. 2

    Provide therapeutic interventions through Healios as part of the core mental health service.

    Stated by Midlands Partnership University NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 15 February 2018.
  3. 3

    Operate a single point of access to identify needs at referral and provide timely responses.

    Stated by Midlands Partnership University NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 15 February 2018.
  4. 4

    Implement electronic patient records giving practitioners access to current and historical risk information, including out of hours.

    Stated by Midlands Partnership University NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 15 February 2018.
  5. 5

    Provide bespoke training to clinical staff on assessment documentation in the electronic patient record system.

    Stated by Midlands Partnership University NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 15 February 2018.
  6. 6

    Conduct reflective learning and organisational development sessions to improve clinical-team communication and team-based working.

    Stated by Midlands Partnership University NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 15 February 2018.
  7. 7

    Provide home-treatment and crisis-team support to young people presenting in crisis, including support at home.

    Stated by Midlands Partnership University NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 15 February 2018.
  8. 8

    Complete recruitment to vacant mental health service posts to strengthen skill mix and capacity for children and young people.

    Stated by Midlands Partnership University NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 15 February 2018.
  9. 9

    Develop a joint crisis pathway between adult and children’s mental health services.

    Stated by Midlands Partnership University NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 15 February 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

Make Kooth and Children’s Society open-access services available to young people, families and professionals.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• New services are available from Kooth (open access online service for young people 11-25) and The Childrens Society (open access drop-in service for CYP,”

Source location

2017-0392-Response
Page 3 · response
Published 15 February 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

Provide therapeutic interventions through Healios as part of the core mental health service.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• When a young person is accepted within the service, a clear pathway for their care is identified, this enables the case holding clinician to access additional support for example, psychology, family therapy consultant psychiatry (Also points 2, 3, 6 & 7) Healios are delivering one therapeutic interventions as part of core MH service (point 8).”

Source location

2017-0392-Response
Page 3 · response
Published 15 February 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

Operate a single point of access to identify needs at referral and provide timely responses.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• A single point of access to the service was implemented on 4th Dec 2017 to ensure that young people’s needs can be appropriately identified at the point of referral and an appropriate, timely response provided (point 1 and 7). Introduction of standardised validated clinical risk assessment tool with associated pathway to enable timely robust response to changes in risk level (Also points 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7)”

Source location

2017-0392-Response
Page 3 · response
Published 15 February 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

Implement electronic patient records giving practitioners access to current and historical risk information, including out of hours.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Implementation of electronic patient records, to ensure that young people’s current and historical risk history is available to all practitioners working with the young person, including “out of hours”. (points 3, 4 & 7)”

Source location

2017-0392-Response
Page 3 · response
Published 15 February 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

Provide bespoke training to clinical staff on assessment documentation in the electronic patient record system.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Bespoke training on all assessment documentation used within the electronic patient record system is being provided to all clinical staff to ensure consistent use (points 3, 5, 6 & 7)”

Source location

2017-0392-Response
Page 3 · response
Published 15 February 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

Conduct reflective learning and organisational development sessions to improve clinical-team communication and team-based working.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Reflective learning/OD sessions for the clinical teams are taking place to improve communication between members and improved team based working (points 2, 5, 6 & 7) The Home Treatment / crisis team now respond to young people who present in crisis and offer additional support within the home during episodes of crisis (Also points 3, 4 & 7)”

Source location

2017-0392-Response
Page 3 · response
Published 15 February 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

Provide home-treatment and crisis-team support to young people presenting in crisis, including support at home.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Reflective learning/OD sessions for the clinical teams are taking place to improve communication between members and improved team based working (points 2, 5, 6 & 7) The Home Treatment / crisis team now respond to young people who present in crisis and offer additional support within the home during episodes of crisis (Also points 3, 4 & 7)”

Source location

2017-0392-Response
Page 3 · response
Published 15 February 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

Complete recruitment to vacant mental health service posts to strengthen skill mix and capacity for children and young people.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• By end of June 2018 – Completion of appointment to vacant posts within the Mental Health service to ensure skill mix and capacity in place to better meet needs of children and young people. (Posts are currently out to advert) (points 1, 2, 3, 5 & 7)”

Source location

2017-0392-Response
Page 4 · response
Published 15 February 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

Develop a joint crisis pathway between adult and children’s mental health services.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• By end of June 2018 - Development of a joint crisis pathway between adult and children’s mental health services to improve the response further for children and young people in crisis (also points 2, 3, 5 & 7).”

Source location

2017-0392-Response
Page 4 · response
Published 15 February 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
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026