PFD report

Name not published · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 5 Nov 2018•London Inner 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
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
5

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.

Concerns raised6

  1. Failure to examine patients’ past records in full
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to review relevant clinical records before care decisions
  2. Medication prescribing errors involving incorrect doses
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe medication prescribing
  3. Failure to record clinical presentations, diagnoses, medication-change rationale and attendances
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to reliably document the rationale for consequential decisionsPart of recurring concern: Inadequate recording of medication prescribing decisions
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 examine patients’ past records in full

Wider context from the report

“3. On 5 October 2017 the deceased saw Dr A again. The Zolpidem was swapped to Nitrazepam, a more potent sedative, as the deceased had said that after 2 weeks he had not found the Zolpidem to be effective. Expert evidence adduced at the inquest from ████████ was to the effect that the deceased’s presentation at this point should have triggered a further inquiry into his psychiatric history. ████████ said that he would have contacted the deceased’s home GP. 4. On 19 October 2017 the deceased saw Dr A again. He said he was feeling better on the Duloxetine but was still stressed and anxious and got a few anxiety attacks. Dr A prescribed him Propranolol, Nitrazepam and Xanax. Dr A also prescribed the deceased 6 months’ worth of Duloxetine. ████████ evidence was that it was “most unusual” to prescribe such a large amount of medication (6 months’ worth of Duloxetine) during the initial period where a patient’s medication had been switched and where close monitoring was needed. He opined that the first 6 weeks of the ‘switch’ period were ones in which the patient might get worse before getting better, might get worse and might develop suicidal thoughts. ████████ said that such a volume of medication was not merited clinically and could create a risk of overdose. 5. On 8 and 9 November 2017 the deceased saw Dr B. She made no notes of his presentation or diagnosis on any occasion when she saw him which she accepted she should have done. She also did not note her rationale for changing his medication which again ████████ said should have happened. He also considered that Dr B should have examined the past records for the deceased which she accepted she had not done in full. 6. There are a series of further issues with the medication Dr B prescribed the deceased and her records of the same. The electronic patient notes reflect a prescription for Xanax but she said in evidence that the deceased had not in fact accepted this. She prescribed him Temazepam but this is a controlled drug in this country and cannot be prescribed in the usual way. She changed this to Nitrazepam but the dose was incorrect and this was refused by the pharmacy. The next day she prescribed him Lorazepam without him returning the Nitrazepam prescription to her. She made an error in the dose for Lorazepam and had to correct that. When he attended on 15 November 2017 asking for more medication she made no note of his attendance. 7. ████████ evidence was that the multiple changes to the medication regime made by Dr B were not medically indicated and that the deceased had needed an urgent psychiatric referral. He said this was the case by 8 November 2017. 8. Overall ████████ said his impression was that Dr B did not understand what she was prescribing. 9. I accepted ████████ opinion on the various issues set out above. 10. Large numbers of boxes of medication were found at the deceased’s flat after his death by the police and his family. There remains some uncertainty as to where he obtained all the medication from, and what exactly he had taken and when. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to review relevant clinical records before care decisions.

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

Medication prescribing errors involving incorrect doses

Wider context from the report

“3. On 5 October 2017 the deceased saw Dr A again. The Zolpidem was swapped to Nitrazepam, a more potent sedative, as the deceased had said that after 2 weeks he had not found the Zolpidem to be effective. Expert evidence adduced at the inquest from ████████ was to the effect that the deceased’s presentation at this point should have triggered a further inquiry into his psychiatric history. ████████ said that he would have contacted the deceased’s home GP. 4. On 19 October 2017 the deceased saw Dr A again. He said he was feeling better on the Duloxetine but was still stressed and anxious and got a few anxiety attacks. Dr A prescribed him Propranolol, Nitrazepam and Xanax. Dr A also prescribed the deceased 6 months’ worth of Duloxetine. ████████ evidence was that it was “most unusual” to prescribe such a large amount of medication (6 months’ worth of Duloxetine) during the initial period where a patient’s medication had been switched and where close monitoring was needed. He opined that the first 6 weeks of the ‘switch’ period were ones in which the patient might get worse before getting better, might get worse and might develop suicidal thoughts. ████████ said that such a volume of medication was not merited clinically and could create a risk of overdose. 5. On 8 and 9 November 2017 the deceased saw Dr B. She made no notes of his presentation or diagnosis on any occasion when she saw him which she accepted she should have done. She also did not note her rationale for changing his medication which again ████████ said should have happened. He also considered that Dr B should have examined the past records for the deceased which she accepted she had not done in full. 6. There are a series of further issues with the medication Dr B prescribed the deceased and her records of the same. The electronic patient notes reflect a prescription for Xanax but she said in evidence that the deceased had not in fact accepted this. She prescribed him Temazepam but this is a controlled drug in this country and cannot be prescribed in the usual way. She changed this to Nitrazepam but the dose was incorrect and this was refused by the pharmacy. The next day she prescribed him Lorazepam without him returning the Nitrazepam prescription to her. She made an error in the dose for Lorazepam and had to correct that. When he attended on 15 November 2017 asking for more medication she made no note of his attendance. 7. ████████ evidence was that the multiple changes to the medication regime made by Dr B were not medically indicated and that the deceased had needed an urgent psychiatric referral. He said this was the case by 8 November 2017. 8. Overall ████████ said his impression was that Dr B did not understand what she was prescribing. 9. I accepted ████████ opinion on the various issues set out above. 10. Large numbers of boxes of medication were found at the deceased’s flat after his death by the police and his family. There remains some uncertainty as to where he obtained all the medication from, and what exactly he had taken and when. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe medication prescribing.

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 record clinical presentations, diagnoses, medication-change rationale and attendances

Wider context from the report

“3. On 5 October 2017 the deceased saw Dr A again. The Zolpidem was swapped to Nitrazepam, a more potent sedative, as the deceased had said that after 2 weeks he had not found the Zolpidem to be effective. Expert evidence adduced at the inquest from ████████ was to the effect that the deceased’s presentation at this point should have triggered a further inquiry into his psychiatric history. ████████ said that he would have contacted the deceased’s home GP. 4. On 19 October 2017 the deceased saw Dr A again. He said he was feeling better on the Duloxetine but was still stressed and anxious and got a few anxiety attacks. Dr A prescribed him Propranolol, Nitrazepam and Xanax. Dr A also prescribed the deceased 6 months’ worth of Duloxetine. ████████ evidence was that it was “most unusual” to prescribe such a large amount of medication (6 months’ worth of Duloxetine) during the initial period where a patient’s medication had been switched and where close monitoring was needed. He opined that the first 6 weeks of the ‘switch’ period were ones in which the patient might get worse before getting better, might get worse and might develop suicidal thoughts. ████████ said that such a volume of medication was not merited clinically and could create a risk of overdose. 5. On 8 and 9 November 2017 the deceased saw Dr B. She made no notes of his presentation or diagnosis on any occasion when she saw him which she accepted she should have done. She also did not note her rationale for changing his medication which again ████████ said should have happened. He also considered that Dr B should have examined the past records for the deceased which she accepted she had not done in full. 6. There are a series of further issues with the medication Dr B prescribed the deceased and her records of the same. The electronic patient notes reflect a prescription for Xanax but she said in evidence that the deceased had not in fact accepted this. She prescribed him Temazepam but this is a controlled drug in this country and cannot be prescribed in the usual way. She changed this to Nitrazepam but the dose was incorrect and this was refused by the pharmacy. The next day she prescribed him Lorazepam without him returning the Nitrazepam prescription to her. She made an error in the dose for Lorazepam and had to correct that. When he attended on 15 November 2017 asking for more medication she made no note of his attendance. 7. ████████ evidence was that the multiple changes to the medication regime made by Dr B were not medically indicated and that the deceased had needed an urgent psychiatric referral. He said this was the case by 8 November 2017. 8. Overall ████████ said his impression was that Dr B did not understand what she was prescribing. 9. I accepted ████████ opinion on the various issues set out above. 10. Large numbers of boxes of medication were found at the deceased’s flat after his death by the police and his family. There remains some uncertainty as to where he obtained all the medication from, and what exactly he had taken and when. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably document the rationale for consequential decisions; Inadequate recording of medication prescribing decisions.

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 urgent psychiatric referral when clinically needed

Wider context from the report

“3. On 5 October 2017 the deceased saw Dr A again. The Zolpidem was swapped to Nitrazepam, a more potent sedative, as the deceased had said that after 2 weeks he had not found the Zolpidem to be effective. Expert evidence adduced at the inquest from ████████ was to the effect that the deceased’s presentation at this point should have triggered a further inquiry into his psychiatric history. ████████ said that he would have contacted the deceased’s home GP. 4. On 19 October 2017 the deceased saw Dr A again. He said he was feeling better on the Duloxetine but was still stressed and anxious and got a few anxiety attacks. Dr A prescribed him Propranolol, Nitrazepam and Xanax. Dr A also prescribed the deceased 6 months’ worth of Duloxetine. ████████ evidence was that it was “most unusual” to prescribe such a large amount of medication (6 months’ worth of Duloxetine) during the initial period where a patient’s medication had been switched and where close monitoring was needed. He opined that the first 6 weeks of the ‘switch’ period were ones in which the patient might get worse before getting better, might get worse and might develop suicidal thoughts. ████████ said that such a volume of medication was not merited clinically and could create a risk of overdose. 5. On 8 and 9 November 2017 the deceased saw Dr B. She made no notes of his presentation or diagnosis on any occasion when she saw him which she accepted she should have done. She also did not note her rationale for changing his medication which again ████████ said should have happened. He also considered that Dr B should have examined the past records for the deceased which she accepted she had not done in full. 6. There are a series of further issues with the medication Dr B prescribed the deceased and her records of the same. The electronic patient notes reflect a prescription for Xanax but she said in evidence that the deceased had not in fact accepted this. She prescribed him Temazepam but this is a controlled drug in this country and cannot be prescribed in the usual way. She changed this to Nitrazepam but the dose was incorrect and this was refused by the pharmacy. The next day she prescribed him Lorazepam without him returning the Nitrazepam prescription to her. She made an error in the dose for Lorazepam and had to correct that. When he attended on 15 November 2017 asking for more medication she made no note of his attendance. 7. ████████ evidence was that the multiple changes to the medication regime made by Dr B were not medically indicated and that the deceased had needed an urgent psychiatric referral. He said this was the case by 8 November 2017. 8. Overall ████████ said his impression was that Dr B did not understand what she was prescribing. 9. I accepted ████████ opinion on the various issues set out above. 10. Large numbers of boxes of medication were found at the deceased’s flat after his death by the police and his family. There remains some uncertainty as to where he obtained all the medication from, and what exactly he had taken and when. ”

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

Failure to inquire into psychiatric history when presentation warrants further inquiry

Wider context from the report

“3. On 5 October 2017 the deceased saw Dr A again. The Zolpidem was swapped to Nitrazepam, a more potent sedative, as the deceased had said that after 2 weeks he had not found the Zolpidem to be effective. Expert evidence adduced at the inquest from ████████ was to the effect that the deceased’s presentation at this point should have triggered a further inquiry into his psychiatric history. ████████ said that he would have contacted the deceased’s home GP. 4. On 19 October 2017 the deceased saw Dr A again. He said he was feeling better on the Duloxetine but was still stressed and anxious and got a few anxiety attacks. Dr A prescribed him Propranolol, Nitrazepam and Xanax. Dr A also prescribed the deceased 6 months’ worth of Duloxetine. ████████ evidence was that it was “most unusual” to prescribe such a large amount of medication (6 months’ worth of Duloxetine) during the initial period where a patient’s medication had been switched and where close monitoring was needed. He opined that the first 6 weeks of the ‘switch’ period were ones in which the patient might get worse before getting better, might get worse and might develop suicidal thoughts. ████████ said that such a volume of medication was not merited clinically and could create a risk of overdose. 5. On 8 and 9 November 2017 the deceased saw Dr B. She made no notes of his presentation or diagnosis on any occasion when she saw him which she accepted she should have done. She also did not note her rationale for changing his medication which again ████████ said should have happened. He also considered that Dr B should have examined the past records for the deceased which she accepted she had not done in full. 6. There are a series of further issues with the medication Dr B prescribed the deceased and her records of the same. The electronic patient notes reflect a prescription for Xanax but she said in evidence that the deceased had not in fact accepted this. She prescribed him Temazepam but this is a controlled drug in this country and cannot be prescribed in the usual way. She changed this to Nitrazepam but the dose was incorrect and this was refused by the pharmacy. The next day she prescribed him Lorazepam without him returning the Nitrazepam prescription to her. She made an error in the dose for Lorazepam and had to correct that. When he attended on 15 November 2017 asking for more medication she made no note of his attendance. 7. ████████ evidence was that the multiple changes to the medication regime made by Dr B were not medically indicated and that the deceased had needed an urgent psychiatric referral. He said this was the case by 8 November 2017. 8. Overall ████████ said his impression was that Dr B did not understand what she was prescribing. 9. I accepted ████████ opinion on the various issues set out above. 10. Large numbers of boxes of medication were found at the deceased’s flat after his death by the police and his family. There remains some uncertainty as to where he obtained all the medication from, and what exactly he had taken and when. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to incorporate relevant clinical history and diagnoses into care decisions; Failure to investigate concerning presentations beyond initial appearance and self-report.

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

Inappropriate prescribing of large medication quantities during an initial medication switch

Wider context from the report

“3. On 5 October 2017 the deceased saw Dr A again. The Zolpidem was swapped to Nitrazepam, a more potent sedative, as the deceased had said that after 2 weeks he had not found the Zolpidem to be effective. Expert evidence adduced at the inquest from ████████ was to the effect that the deceased’s presentation at this point should have triggered a further inquiry into his psychiatric history. ████████ said that he would have contacted the deceased’s home GP. 4. On 19 October 2017 the deceased saw Dr A again. He said he was feeling better on the Duloxetine but was still stressed and anxious and got a few anxiety attacks. Dr A prescribed him Propranolol, Nitrazepam and Xanax. Dr A also prescribed the deceased 6 months’ worth of Duloxetine. ████████ evidence was that it was “most unusual” to prescribe such a large amount of medication (6 months’ worth of Duloxetine) during the initial period where a patient’s medication had been switched and where close monitoring was needed. He opined that the first 6 weeks of the ‘switch’ period were ones in which the patient might get worse before getting better, might get worse and might develop suicidal thoughts. ████████ said that such a volume of medication was not merited clinically and could create a risk of overdose. 5. On 8 and 9 November 2017 the deceased saw Dr B. She made no notes of his presentation or diagnosis on any occasion when she saw him which she accepted she should have done. She also did not note her rationale for changing his medication which again ████████ said should have happened. He also considered that Dr B should have examined the past records for the deceased which she accepted she had not done in full. 6. There are a series of further issues with the medication Dr B prescribed the deceased and her records of the same. The electronic patient notes reflect a prescription for Xanax but she said in evidence that the deceased had not in fact accepted this. She prescribed him Temazepam but this is a controlled drug in this country and cannot be prescribed in the usual way. She changed this to Nitrazepam but the dose was incorrect and this was refused by the pharmacy. The next day she prescribed him Lorazepam without him returning the Nitrazepam prescription to her. She made an error in the dose for Lorazepam and had to correct that. When he attended on 15 November 2017 asking for more medication she made no note of his attendance. 7. ████████ evidence was that the multiple changes to the medication regime made by Dr B were not medically indicated and that the deceased had needed an urgent psychiatric referral. He said this was the case by 8 November 2017. 8. Overall ████████ said his impression was that Dr B did not understand what she was prescribing. 9. I accepted ████████ opinion on the various issues set out above. 10. Large numbers of boxes of medication were found at the deceased’s flat after his death by the police and his family. There remains some uncertainty as to where he obtained all the medication from, and what exactly he had taken and when. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Medication quantity controls failing to prevent unsafe access to excessive amounts; Unsafe medication prescribing.

Open source report

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.5

  1. 1

    Request an Expert Report on the care provided to the deceased by Dr ████████ and assess how the case should progress after receiving it.

    Stated by General Medical CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 7 February 2022.
  2. 2

    Refer the investigation to medical and non-medical case examiners to review the evidence and decide its outcome after the response period.

    Stated by General Medical CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 7 February 2022.
  3. 3

    Continue the GMC investigation into Dr ████████ following the inquest.

    Stated by General Medical CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 7 February 2022.
  4. 4

    Write formally under Rule 7 to notify the doctor of the allegation, provide supporting documents, invite written representations, and explain potential disclosure.

    Stated by General Medical CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 7 February 2022.
  5. 5

    Continue the GMC investigation into Dr ████████ and assess the evidence received, including the commissioned Expert Report.

    Stated by General Medical CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 7 February 2022.

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

Request an Expert Report on the care provided to the deceased by Dr ████████ and assess how the case should progress after receiving it.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. Following the conclusion of the Inquest on ████████ an investigation has been opened in relation to Dr ████████. It is the intention of the GMC to request an Expert Report to comment on the care the deceased received from Dr ████████. Expert Reports can take around two months to produce. Upon receipt of the Expert Report a decision will then be made as to how the case should progress. It is likely that the investigation will progress to Rule 7 and follow the same process as detailed above but this will be assessed upon receipt of the Expert Report.”

Source location

Response-from-GMC-to-Prevention-of-future-deaths-report
Page 3 · response
Published 7 February 2022

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

Refer the investigation to medical and non-medical case examiners to review the evidence and decide its outcome after the response period.

Verbatim wording from the response

“At the end of the investigation, and following the 28 day period allowing for”

Source location

Response-from-GMC-to-Prevention-of-future-deaths-report
Page 2 · response
Published 7 February 2022

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

Continue the GMC investigation into Dr ████████ following the inquest.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. Following the conclusion of the Inquest on ████████ an investigation has been opened in relation to Dr ████████. It is the intention of the GMC to request an Expert Report to comment on the care the deceased received from Dr ████████. Expert Reports can take around two months to produce. Upon receipt of the Expert Report a decision will then be made as to how the case should progress. It is likely that the investigation will progress to Rule 7 and follow the same process as detailed above but this will be assessed upon receipt of the Expert Report.”

Source location

Response-from-GMC-to-Prevention-of-future-deaths-report
Page 3 · response
Published 7 February 2022

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

Write formally under Rule 7 to notify the doctor of the allegation, provide supporting documents, invite written representations, and explain potential disclosure.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Under Rule 7 of the Fitness to Practise Rules 2004 ████████ will now be written to formally to: (a) inform them of the allegation and state the matters which appear to raise a question as to whether their fitness to practise is impaired; (b) provide them with copies of any documents received by the General Council in support of the allegation; (c) invite them to respond to the allegation with written representations within the period of 28 days from the date of the letter; and (d) inform them that representations received from them will be disclosed, where appropriate, to the maker of the allegation (if any) for comment.”

Source location

Response-from-GMC-to-Prevention-of-future-deaths-report
Page 2 · response
Published 7 February 2022

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

Continue the GMC investigation into Dr ████████ and assess the evidence received, including the commissioned Expert Report.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1. As a result of a referral from the Metropolitan Police Service dated 4 May 2019 in relation to Dr ████████ and the care provided to the deceased, an investigation was opened by the GMC. An Expert Report was requested and this has now been received.”

Source location

Response-from-GMC-to-Prevention-of-future-deaths-report
Page 2 · response
Published 7 February 2022

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

Data last updated 7 September 2026