PFD report

Steven Keith Marsland · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 13 Dec 2019•Manchester South

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
4

Named on the report

Responses found
0

Of 4 recipients

Stated actions
0

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 engage families and work with them to support people in the community
  2. Lack of a clear CMHT policy for effectively engaging families
  3. Failure to provide regular CMHT contact in the community
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to provide timely and adequate follow-up after discharge
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

No linked response statements

No respondent-stated action or position is clearly linked to these concerns.

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 engage families and work with them to support people in the community

Wider context from the report

“1. The inquest heard that his family were very supportive and had attended MDT meetings whilst he was an in-patient. Following his discharge there was no attempt to engage his family and obtain information from them or work with them to support him in the community. There was no clear policy about how a family could be effectively engaged by the CMHT; ”

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 a clear CMHT policy for effectively engaging families

Wider context from the report

“1. The inquest heard that his family were very supportive and had attended MDT meetings whilst he was an in-patient. Following his discharge there was no attempt to engage his family and obtain information from them or work with them to support him in the community. There was no clear policy about how a family could be effectively engaged by the CMHT; ”

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 regular CMHT contact in the community

Wider context from the report

“3. The inquest heard that it was recognised as part of his discharge planning that there should be regular contact in the community with the CMHT. That did not happen and there was no escalation or discussion about the picture of very limited contact as it evolved post discharge. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — 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 escalate or discuss very limited post-discharge contact

Wider context from the report

“3. The inquest heard that it was recognised as part of his discharge planning that there should be regular contact in the community with the CMHT. That did not happen and there was no escalation or discussion about the picture of very limited contact as it evolved post discharge. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — 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 make a follow-up appointment at discharge

Wider context from the report

“2. The inquest heard that he was treated as an in-patient by the Pennine Care team within Stockport MBC. His consultant whilst he was an in-patient was part of the Stockport Team. If he had been a Stockport Resident he would have been discharged under the care of that consultant in the community and had a follow up appointment booked with that Doctor at discharge. However because he was a Tameside Resident at discharge his care moved to the Tameside Borough Pennine Care Team. That meant he had to be allocated to a community psychiatrist based there. That did not happen and no follow up appointment was made; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to provide timely continuing mental health reviews and follow-up; Unreliable arrangement and communication of patient appointments 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

Failure to allocate people moving between borough teams to a community psychiatrist

Wider context from the report

“2. The inquest heard that he was treated as an in-patient by the Pennine Care team within Stockport MBC. His consultant whilst he was an in-patient was part of the Stockport Team. If he had been a Stockport Resident he would have been discharged under the care of that consultant in the community and had a follow up appointment booked with that Doctor at discharge. However because he was a Tameside Resident at discharge his care moved to the Tameside Borough Pennine Care Team. That meant he had to be allocated to a community psychiatrist based there. That did not happen and no follow up appointment was made; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to integrate mental health services across care settings; Unsafe coordination and continuity during mental health service transfers.

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
0/4

Data last updated 7 September 2026

No official response is included in the current published snapshot.