Mrs Leesley · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 12 Dec 2016•South Yorkshire (Western)

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
1

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
4

Described in responses

Recipients and published 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.

Concerns raised1

  1. Failure to act on safeguarding referrals
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to act appropriately on safeguarding referrals and notices

Stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.4

  1. Sheffield City Council

    Complete the ongoing investigation into the missing safeguarding referral, including the IT audit and Serious Incident review, and produce the resulting incident report.

  2. Sheffield City Council

    Implement an email-journaling facility to retain audit logs and track emails sent, received, deleted and other mailbox actions.

  3. Sheffield City Council

    Remind all Adult Access staff of email-handling procedures to reduce the risk of safeguarding referrals being deleted or left unactioned.

  4. Sheffield City Council

    Amend automated safeguarding-referral acknowledgements to instruct senders to confirm receipt if Adult Access does not respond within two working days.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.3

  1. Sheffield City Council

    The GP surgery must make the request for the forensic report from its NHS mail provider.

    Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
  2. Sheffield City Council

    There is no evidence that the referral was not actioned because of human error, and the circumstances appear isolated.

    Disputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
  3. Sheffield City Council

    Existing email-handling procedures and staff reminders have adequately addressed and minimised the risk of received referrals being missed through human error.

    Existing arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

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 act on safeguarding referrals

Wider context from the report

“During the inquest, evidence showed the GP made a safeguarding report on 4.3.16, but for reasons unknown, despite there being an automated acknowledgment, the referral was not acted upon. It was unclear whether this was a case of unanimous error or IT error. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to act appropriately on safeguarding referrals and notices.

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

Complete the ongoing investigation into the missing safeguarding referral, including the IT audit and Serious Incident review, and produce the resulting incident report.

Verbatim wording from the response

“4. IT systems audit”

Source location

2016-0442-Response-by-Sheffield-City-Council-1
Page 4 · response
Published 12 February 2017

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 an email-journaling facility to retain audit logs and track emails sent, received, deleted and other mailbox actions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3.1.4 The IT systems operating in the Adult Access Team are designed to prevent emails, including those that contain safeguarding referrals, from being accidentally deleted. To completely delete an email, it would have to be deleted from the inbox folder and then separately deleted from the deleted folder; two distinct actions. The Local Authority is putting in place a Journal function integrated into the IT system that will make it easier to retrieve and track deleted emails. Journal function enables the Local Authority to track every action in a specified mailbox, In this case the Mailbox for the Adult Access Team.”

Source location

2016-0442-Response-by-Sheffield-City-Council-1
Page 2 · response
Published 12 February 2017

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

Remind all Adult Access staff of email-handling procedures to reduce the risk of safeguarding referrals being deleted or left unactioned.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3.2.5 However, to further reduce the risk of a report not being actioned, all staff working within Adult Access team have been reminded of the existing procedures and process for handling emails to further reduce the risk of emails being deleted or not actioned correctly.”

Source location

2016-0442-Response-by-Sheffield-City-Council-1
Page 3 · response
Published 12 February 2017

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

Amend automated safeguarding-referral acknowledgements to instruct senders to confirm receipt if Adult Access does not respond within two working days.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3.1.1 On 9th December 2016, the final day of the inquest, ████████, Advanced Practitioner in the Community Access Prevention Team, amended the wording of the automated response generated when a safeguarding report is received by the Adult Access Team.”

Source location

2016-0442-Response-by-Sheffield-City-Council-1
Page 1 · response
Published 12 February 2017

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

The GP surgery must make the request for the forensic report from its NHS mail provider.

Verbatim wording from the response

“5.2 ████████ has requested a forensic report and audit log via the Accenture agency responsible for the IT System at the GP surgery used to send the email.”

Source location

2016-0442-Response-by-Sheffield-City-Council-1
Page 5 · response
Published 12 February 2017

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

There is no evidence that the referral was not actioned because of human error, and the circumstances appear isolated.

Verbatim wording from the response

“There is no available evidence to suggest that non-action was the result of human error either by action or omission on this occasion.”

Source location

2016-0442-Response-by-Sheffield-City-Council-1
Page 3 · response
Published 12 February 2017

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

Existing email-handling procedures and staff reminders have adequately addressed and minimised the risk of received referrals being missed through human error.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3.2.5 However, to further reduce the risk of a report not being actioned, all staff working within Adult Access team have been reminded of the existing procedures and process for handling emails to further reduce the risk of emails being deleted or not actioned correctly.”

Source location

2016-0442-Response-by-Sheffield-City-Council-1
Page 3 · response
Published 12 February 2017

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