PFD report

Denise Jane PORTER · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 21 Dec 2023•West 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
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
0

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
0

Described in responses

Recipients and published 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 raised2

  1. Failure to scrutinise all information contained within British Transport Police referrals
  2. Failure to make relevant inquiries when British Transport Police reporting is ambiguous or incomplete
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable operational liaison between police and mental health services for safety-critical risk managementPart of recurring concern: Unreliable sharing of railway concern-for-welfare information with relevant responders
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 scrutinise all information contained within British Transport Police referrals

Wider context from the report

“The inquest heard the Trust did not interrogate the Safeguarding and Vulnerability Report, prepared by British Transport Police. The Trust Staff relied on the summary of the incident, both at the triage stage and subsequently during the psychiatric reviews. The Trust staff did not contact British Transport Police again to establish any information about the incident (for example the CCTV was not viewed nor a summary of the footage requested, nor were any meetings convened or discussions held between the Trust and British Transport Police). The Trust conducted a review of the care and treatment provided to Mrs Porter. Their Report stated: "Had the referral from BTP to OACMHT included a full account of the circumstances of the incident on 25 January 2023, the OACMHT would have had a fuller understanding of the level of intent exhibited on that occasion, and subsequently risks would have been determined as high, and a more robust plan of care implemented to mitigate against these risks, that would have been immediately shared with her family". It was established at Inquest that had the full details of the incident on 25th January 2023 been understood - ie that Denise intended to take her life and this was only prevented by the slowing and halting of the train - that the psychiatrist would have referred her either to the Intensive Home Treatment Team (with consent) or for a Mental Health Act assessment (if no consent had been forthcoming). The Trust's Report stated: "There were no identified service delivery issues that impacted on the services' ability to offer care and treatment". However, in oral evidence, the Trust's witness agreed this was inaccurate, following reflection upon the missed opportunities of investigating the events of 25th January 2023. The Trust was unable to provide the Inquest with information to satisfy my concern that the Trust has robust systems in place to avoid the risk that staff may rely upon short summaries from British Transport Police, rather than scrutinising all the information contained within a referral and making relevant inquiries if the reporting is ambiguous or incomplete. In this case, the Trust was clearly of the view that the detail was significant but was overly reliant upon partial information which resulted in missed opportunities for appropriate referral. ”

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 make relevant inquiries when British Transport Police reporting is ambiguous or incomplete

Wider context from the report

“The inquest heard the Trust did not interrogate the Safeguarding and Vulnerability Report, prepared by British Transport Police. The Trust Staff relied on the summary of the incident, both at the triage stage and subsequently during the psychiatric reviews. The Trust staff did not contact British Transport Police again to establish any information about the incident (for example the CCTV was not viewed nor a summary of the footage requested, nor were any meetings convened or discussions held between the Trust and British Transport Police). The Trust conducted a review of the care and treatment provided to Mrs Porter. Their Report stated: "Had the referral from BTP to OACMHT included a full account of the circumstances of the incident on 25 January 2023, the OACMHT would have had a fuller understanding of the level of intent exhibited on that occasion, and subsequently risks would have been determined as high, and a more robust plan of care implemented to mitigate against these risks, that would have been immediately shared with her family". It was established at Inquest that had the full details of the incident on 25th January 2023 been understood - ie that Denise intended to take her life and this was only prevented by the slowing and halting of the train - that the psychiatrist would have referred her either to the Intensive Home Treatment Team (with consent) or for a Mental Health Act assessment (if no consent had been forthcoming). The Trust's Report stated: "There were no identified service delivery issues that impacted on the services' ability to offer care and treatment". However, in oral evidence, the Trust's witness agreed this was inaccurate, following reflection upon the missed opportunities of investigating the events of 25th January 2023. The Trust was unable to provide the Inquest with information to satisfy my concern that the Trust has robust systems in place to avoid the risk that staff may rely upon short summaries from British Transport Police, rather than scrutinising all the information contained within a referral and making relevant inquiries if the reporting is ambiguous or incomplete. In this case, the Trust was clearly of the view that the detail was significant but was overly reliant upon partial information which resulted in missed opportunities for appropriate referral. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable operational liaison between police and mental health services for safety-critical risk management; Unreliable sharing of railway concern-for-welfare information with relevant responders.

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.