PFD report

Janet Brown Townend · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 4 Nov 2024•East Riding and Hull

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
8

Raised in this report

Recipients
3

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 3 recipients

Stated actions
12

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 raised8

  1. Failure to consider reassessment of capacity
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to recognise impaired decision-making capacity in care decisionsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable assessment and recording of patients’ mental capacity
  2. Inaccurate recording of Early Warning Signs
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable clinical Early Warning Score systems for deterioration
  3. Insufficient time spent providing care and completing care duties
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.3

  1. Action

    Obtain immediate assurances from the provider about its safeguarding processes.

    Stated by Care Quality CommissionStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 5 November 2024.
  2. Action

    Obtain and review the service’s care records to determine whether further regulatory action is needed.

    Stated by Care Quality CommissionStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 5 November 2024.
  3. Action

    Undertake an unannounced assessment covering visit duration, nutrition and hydration, health monitoring, escalation, record keeping, governance, safeguarding and decision-making.

    Stated by Care Quality CommissionStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 5 November 2024.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.6

  1. Position

    Neither inspection raised concerns about staff failing to escalate health concerns, and the earlier inspection found appropriate healthcare referrals.

    Stated by Care Quality CommissionDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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 consider reassessment of capacity

Wider context from the report

“During the course of the evidence a number of concerns arose as to the level of care Ms Townend received from the carers employed by A&B Healthcare. These include: a) Carers at times spent no more than 15 minutes, on one occasion 8 minutes, with Ms Townend. Bearing in times the tasks, document keeping and care to administer and considering Early Warning Signs have there was no attention to detail; Their duties when there included to prepare meals, conduct personal care if required and talk to the service user. 8 to 15 minutes is not an adequate time to conduct these tasks; ; b) Carers did not escalate any concerns when Ms Townend was not eating. As Ms Townend had comorbidities and was at risk of infection nutrition was very important; c) Carers did not escalate any concerns when Ms Townend was unwell with sickness. There were a number of times Ms Townend presented with having been sick and this was not considered as a concern; d) Carers did not accurately record concerns regarding Early Warning Signs (EWS) or escalate when they were present. The EWS were always recorded as no concerns. This was not correct as there were occasions where Ms Townend was displaying signs that were Early Warning Signs which should have been escalated; e) Carers did not follow up with Ms Townend when she had indicated she was seeking GP support as she was feeling unwell. This was recorded in the Observation Log that Ms Townend said she would contact her GP however the proceeding carers did not enquire whether this had been done; f) Although Ms Townend was deemed to have capacity carers did not escalate any concerns when Ms Townend was making unwise decisions to refuse personal care, decline food and decline medical intervention. This meant that she was sitting at times in her own faeces and becoming weak and it was not considered whether she needed to be reassessed regarding her capacity. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to recognise impaired decision-making capacity in care decisions; Unreliable assessment and recording of patients’ mental capacity.

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

Inaccurate recording of Early Warning Signs

Wider context from the report

“During the course of the evidence a number of concerns arose as to the level of care Ms Townend received from the carers employed by A&B Healthcare. These include: a) Carers at times spent no more than 15 minutes, on one occasion 8 minutes, with Ms Townend. Bearing in times the tasks, document keeping and care to administer and considering Early Warning Signs have there was no attention to detail; Their duties when there included to prepare meals, conduct personal care if required and talk to the service user. 8 to 15 minutes is not an adequate time to conduct these tasks; ; b) Carers did not escalate any concerns when Ms Townend was not eating. As Ms Townend had comorbidities and was at risk of infection nutrition was very important; c) Carers did not escalate any concerns when Ms Townend was unwell with sickness. There were a number of times Ms Townend presented with having been sick and this was not considered as a concern; d) Carers did not accurately record concerns regarding Early Warning Signs (EWS) or escalate when they were present. The EWS were always recorded as no concerns. This was not correct as there were occasions where Ms Townend was displaying signs that were Early Warning Signs which should have been escalated; e) Carers did not follow up with Ms Townend when she had indicated she was seeking GP support as she was feeling unwell. This was recorded in the Observation Log that Ms Townend said she would contact her GP however the proceeding carers did not enquire whether this had been done; f) Although Ms Townend was deemed to have capacity carers did not escalate any concerns when Ms Townend was making unwise decisions to refuse personal care, decline food and decline medical intervention. This meant that she was sitting at times in her own faeces and becoming weak and it was not considered whether she needed to be reassessed regarding her capacity. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable clinical Early Warning Score systems for deterioration.

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

Insufficient time spent providing care and completing care duties

Wider context from the report

“During the course of the evidence a number of concerns arose as to the level of care Ms Townend received from the carers employed by A&B Healthcare. These include: a) Carers at times spent no more than 15 minutes, on one occasion 8 minutes, with Ms Townend. Bearing in times the tasks, document keeping and care to administer and considering Early Warning Signs have there was no attention to detail; Their duties when there included to prepare meals, conduct personal care if required and talk to the service user. 8 to 15 minutes is not an adequate time to conduct these tasks; ; b) Carers did not escalate any concerns when Ms Townend was not eating. As Ms Townend had comorbidities and was at risk of infection nutrition was very important; c) Carers did not escalate any concerns when Ms Townend was unwell with sickness. There were a number of times Ms Townend presented with having been sick and this was not considered as a concern; d) Carers did not accurately record concerns regarding Early Warning Signs (EWS) or escalate when they were present. The EWS were always recorded as no concerns. This was not correct as there were occasions where Ms Townend was displaying signs that were Early Warning Signs which should have been escalated; e) Carers did not follow up with Ms Townend when she had indicated she was seeking GP support as she was feeling unwell. This was recorded in the Observation Log that Ms Townend said she would contact her GP however the proceeding carers did not enquire whether this had been done; f) Although Ms Townend was deemed to have capacity carers did not escalate any concerns when Ms Townend was making unwise decisions to refuse personal care, decline food and decline medical intervention. This meant that she was sitting at times in her own faeces and becoming weak and it was not considered whether she needed to be reassessed regarding her capacity. ”

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 escalate concerns about sickness

Wider context from the report

“During the course of the evidence a number of concerns arose as to the level of care Ms Townend received from the carers employed by A&B Healthcare. These include: a) Carers at times spent no more than 15 minutes, on one occasion 8 minutes, with Ms Townend. Bearing in times the tasks, document keeping and care to administer and considering Early Warning Signs have there was no attention to detail; Their duties when there included to prepare meals, conduct personal care if required and talk to the service user. 8 to 15 minutes is not an adequate time to conduct these tasks; ; b) Carers did not escalate any concerns when Ms Townend was not eating. As Ms Townend had comorbidities and was at risk of infection nutrition was very important; c) Carers did not escalate any concerns when Ms Townend was unwell with sickness. There were a number of times Ms Townend presented with having been sick and this was not considered as a concern; d) Carers did not accurately record concerns regarding Early Warning Signs (EWS) or escalate when they were present. The EWS were always recorded as no concerns. This was not correct as there were occasions where Ms Townend was displaying signs that were Early Warning Signs which should have been escalated; e) Carers did not follow up with Ms Townend when she had indicated she was seeking GP support as she was feeling unwell. This was recorded in the Observation Log that Ms Townend said she would contact her GP however the proceeding carers did not enquire whether this had been done; f) Although Ms Townend was deemed to have capacity carers did not escalate any concerns when Ms Townend was making unwise decisions to refuse personal care, decline food and decline medical intervention. This meant that she was sitting at times in her own faeces and becoming weak and it was not considered whether she needed to be reassessed regarding her capacity. ”

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 follow up on intended GP support

Wider context from the report

“During the course of the evidence a number of concerns arose as to the level of care Ms Townend received from the carers employed by A&B Healthcare. These include: a) Carers at times spent no more than 15 minutes, on one occasion 8 minutes, with Ms Townend. Bearing in times the tasks, document keeping and care to administer and considering Early Warning Signs have there was no attention to detail; Their duties when there included to prepare meals, conduct personal care if required and talk to the service user. 8 to 15 minutes is not an adequate time to conduct these tasks; ; b) Carers did not escalate any concerns when Ms Townend was not eating. As Ms Townend had comorbidities and was at risk of infection nutrition was very important; c) Carers did not escalate any concerns when Ms Townend was unwell with sickness. There were a number of times Ms Townend presented with having been sick and this was not considered as a concern; d) Carers did not accurately record concerns regarding Early Warning Signs (EWS) or escalate when they were present. The EWS were always recorded as no concerns. This was not correct as there were occasions where Ms Townend was displaying signs that were Early Warning Signs which should have been escalated; e) Carers did not follow up with Ms Townend when she had indicated she was seeking GP support as she was feeling unwell. This was recorded in the Observation Log that Ms Townend said she would contact her GP however the proceeding carers did not enquire whether this had been done; f) Although Ms Townend was deemed to have capacity carers did not escalate any concerns when Ms Townend was making unwise decisions to refuse personal care, decline food and decline medical intervention. This meant that she was sitting at times in her own faeces and becoming weak and it was not considered whether she needed to be reassessed regarding her capacity. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to provide sufficient GP involvement in patient care; Failure to reliably escalate patient safety concerns to primary 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 escalate concerns about reduced food intake

Wider context from the report

“During the course of the evidence a number of concerns arose as to the level of care Ms Townend received from the carers employed by A&B Healthcare. These include: a) Carers at times spent no more than 15 minutes, on one occasion 8 minutes, with Ms Townend. Bearing in times the tasks, document keeping and care to administer and considering Early Warning Signs have there was no attention to detail; Their duties when there included to prepare meals, conduct personal care if required and talk to the service user. 8 to 15 minutes is not an adequate time to conduct these tasks; ; b) Carers did not escalate any concerns when Ms Townend was not eating. As Ms Townend had comorbidities and was at risk of infection nutrition was very important; c) Carers did not escalate any concerns when Ms Townend was unwell with sickness. There were a number of times Ms Townend presented with having been sick and this was not considered as a concern; d) Carers did not accurately record concerns regarding Early Warning Signs (EWS) or escalate when they were present. The EWS were always recorded as no concerns. This was not correct as there were occasions where Ms Townend was displaying signs that were Early Warning Signs which should have been escalated; e) Carers did not follow up with Ms Townend when she had indicated she was seeking GP support as she was feeling unwell. This was recorded in the Observation Log that Ms Townend said she would contact her GP however the proceeding carers did not enquire whether this had been done; f) Although Ms Townend was deemed to have capacity carers did not escalate any concerns when Ms Townend was making unwise decisions to refuse personal care, decline food and decline medical intervention. This meant that she was sitting at times in her own faeces and becoming weak and it was not considered whether she needed to be reassessed regarding her capacity. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate management of patients' nutrition and hydration needs.

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 Early Warning Signs

Wider context from the report

“During the course of the evidence a number of concerns arose as to the level of care Ms Townend received from the carers employed by A&B Healthcare. These include: a) Carers at times spent no more than 15 minutes, on one occasion 8 minutes, with Ms Townend. Bearing in times the tasks, document keeping and care to administer and considering Early Warning Signs have there was no attention to detail; Their duties when there included to prepare meals, conduct personal care if required and talk to the service user. 8 to 15 minutes is not an adequate time to conduct these tasks; ; b) Carers did not escalate any concerns when Ms Townend was not eating. As Ms Townend had comorbidities and was at risk of infection nutrition was very important; c) Carers did not escalate any concerns when Ms Townend was unwell with sickness. There were a number of times Ms Townend presented with having been sick and this was not considered as a concern; d) Carers did not accurately record concerns regarding Early Warning Signs (EWS) or escalate when they were present. The EWS were always recorded as no concerns. This was not correct as there were occasions where Ms Townend was displaying signs that were Early Warning Signs which should have been escalated; e) Carers did not follow up with Ms Townend when she had indicated she was seeking GP support as she was feeling unwell. This was recorded in the Observation Log that Ms Townend said she would contact her GP however the proceeding carers did not enquire whether this had been done; f) Although Ms Townend was deemed to have capacity carers did not escalate any concerns when Ms Townend was making unwise decisions to refuse personal care, decline food and decline medical intervention. This meant that she was sitting at times in her own faeces and becoming weak and it was not considered whether she needed to be reassessed regarding her capacity. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable clinical Early Warning Score systems for deterioration; Unreliable escalation of abnormal clinical observations.

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 concerns about unwise refusals of care, food and medical intervention

Wider context from the report

“During the course of the evidence a number of concerns arose as to the level of care Ms Townend received from the carers employed by A&B Healthcare. These include: a) Carers at times spent no more than 15 minutes, on one occasion 8 minutes, with Ms Townend. Bearing in times the tasks, document keeping and care to administer and considering Early Warning Signs have there was no attention to detail; Their duties when there included to prepare meals, conduct personal care if required and talk to the service user. 8 to 15 minutes is not an adequate time to conduct these tasks; ; b) Carers did not escalate any concerns when Ms Townend was not eating. As Ms Townend had comorbidities and was at risk of infection nutrition was very important; c) Carers did not escalate any concerns when Ms Townend was unwell with sickness. There were a number of times Ms Townend presented with having been sick and this was not considered as a concern; d) Carers did not accurately record concerns regarding Early Warning Signs (EWS) or escalate when they were present. The EWS were always recorded as no concerns. This was not correct as there were occasions where Ms Townend was displaying signs that were Early Warning Signs which should have been escalated; e) Carers did not follow up with Ms Townend when she had indicated she was seeking GP support as she was feeling unwell. This was recorded in the Observation Log that Ms Townend said she would contact her GP however the proceeding carers did not enquire whether this had been done; f) Although Ms Townend was deemed to have capacity carers did not escalate any concerns when Ms Townend was making unwise decisions to refuse personal care, decline food and decline medical intervention. This meant that she was sitting at times in her own faeces and becoming weak and it was not considered whether she needed to be reassessed regarding her capacity. ”

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

Obtain immediate assurances from the provider about its safeguarding processes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Neither inspection of Bridlington identified concerns regarding staffs ability to recognise and escalate safeguarding concerns. The inspection of Bridlington in January 2020 found staff had a good understanding of safeguarding processes (Appendix 1). In response to the concerns raised by the coroner concerning the death of Janet Brown, the CQC has received an action plan from the provider addressing staff understanding of the mental capacity act. We intend to undertake an unannounced assessment of the service which will include safeguarding and decision making. We have also requested immediate assurances from the provider regarding their safeguarding processes.”

Source location

Response from CQC
Page 4 · response
Published 5 November 2024

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

Obtain and review the service’s care records to determine whether further regulatory action is needed.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have reviewed all our records and cannot find that we received a statutory notification in relation to Janet Brown’s death. Failure to provide statutory notifications in accordance with Regulation 16 of the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009 is a criminal offence and we have contacted the service to about this. The provider has advised us that the death did not occur while services were being provided in the carrying on of a regulated activity and no further regulated activity was completed following the admission to hospital. We have requested Janet Brown’s care records so this can be reviewed, and so that we can consider whether any other regulatory action needs to be taken.”

Source location

Response from CQC
Page 2 · response
Published 5 November 2024

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

Undertake an unannounced assessment covering visit duration, nutrition and hydration, health monitoring, escalation, record keeping, governance, safeguarding and decision-making.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Both inspections of Bridlington found no concerns regarding the deployment of staff and the published reports include positive feedback from people about the support they received. In response to the concerns raised by the coroner concerning the death of Janet Brown, the CQC has received an action plan from the provider addressing the duration of staff visits. We intend to undertake an unannounced assessment of the service which will include staff having adequate time to meet people’s needs. CQC only neglects the carrying out of personal care, however, adequate”

Source location

Response from CQC
Page 2 · response
Published 5 November 2024

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

Neither inspection raised concerns about staff failing to escalate health concerns, and the earlier inspection found appropriate healthcare referrals.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Neither inspection of Bridlington raised concerns about staff not escalating concerns about people. The inspection of Bridlington in January 2020 found staff supported people to access health care professionals and referrals were made when required. (Appendix 1). In response to the concerns raised by the coroner concerning the death of Janet Brown, the CQC has received an action plan from the provider addressing how staff will monitor people’s health and well-being. We intend to undertake an unannounced assessment of the service which will include how people are supported to live healthier lives and how the provider will monitor peoples care (Appendix 1, Appendix 2).”

Source location

Response from CQC
Page 3 · response
Published 5 November 2024

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

Neither inspection identified inaccurate record keeping; checks and audits were in place to support good governance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Neither inspection of Bridlington raised concerns about the accuracy of record keeping. In both cases, our inspections found checks and audits were in place to ensure good governance of the service. (Appendix 1, Appendix 2). In response to the concerns raised by the coroner concerning the death of Janet Brown, the CQC has received an action plan from the provider addressing staff training, oversight of records and processes for escalating concerns. We intend to undertake an”

Source location

Response from CQC
Page 3 · response
Published 5 November 2024

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

Neither inspection identified concerns about recognising or escalating safeguarding issues, and staff showed good understanding of safeguarding processes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Neither inspection of Bridlington identified concerns regarding staffs ability to recognise and escalate safeguarding concerns. The inspection of Bridlington in January 2020 found staff had a good understanding of safeguarding processes (Appendix 1). In response to the concerns raised by the coroner concerning the death of Janet Brown, the CQC has received an action plan from the provider addressing staff understanding of the mental capacity act. We intend to undertake an unannounced assessment of the service which will include safeguarding and decision making. We have also requested immediate assurances from the provider regarding their safeguarding processes.”

Source location

Response from CQC
Page 4 · response
Published 5 November 2024

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

Both inspections found no concerns regarding staff deployment, disputing that carers lacked adequate time to complete care tasks safely.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Both inspections of Bridlington found no concerns regarding the deployment of staff and the published reports include positive feedback from people about the support they received. In response to the concerns raised by the coroner concerning the death of Janet Brown, the CQC has received an action plan from the provider addressing the duration of staff visits. We intend to undertake an unannounced assessment of the service which will include staff having adequate time to meet people’s needs. CQC only neglects the carrying out of personal care, however, adequate”

Source location

Response from CQC
Page 2 · response
Published 5 November 2024

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 January 2020 inspection found no concerns about staff supporting people to access healthcare services and support.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The inspection of Bridlington in January 2020 found no concerns regarding how staff supported people to access healthcare services and support (Appendix 1). In response to the concerns raised by the coroner concerning the death of Janet Brown, the CQC has received an action plan from the provider addressing their systems for monitoring people’s health effectively within the staff team. We intend to undertake an unannounced assessment of the service which will include governance processes and oversight of people’s care.”

Source location

Response from CQC
Page 4 · response
Published 5 November 2024

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 January 2020 inspection found no concerns about supporting people with eating, drinking, nutrition or hydration needs.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The inspection of Bridlington in January 2020 found no concerns regarding the support people received to eat and drink and/or the ongoing assessment and monitoring of people’s needs and support to access other healthcare services. The inspection of Bridlington in April 2023 did not include these areas. In response to the concerns raised by the coroner concerning the death of Janet Brown, the CQC has received an action plan from the provider addressing nutrition and hydration. We intend to undertake an unannounced assessment of the service which will include nutrition and hydration and how staff identify people’s changing needs and escalate concerns. (Appendix 1, Appendix 2).”

Source location

Response from CQC
Page 3 · response
Published 5 November 2024

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

    Provide practice workshops and a weekly safeguarding hub forum for guidance and case discussion.

    Stated by East Riding of Yorkshire CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 5 November 2024.
  2. 2

    Implement new safeguarding concern and Section 42 enquiry forms with practitioner guidance and training on thorough recording, professional curiosity, and capturing people’s voices.

    Stated by East Riding of Yorkshire CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 5 November 2024.
  3. 3

    Allocate Section 42 enquiries to appropriate locality assessment or review practitioners to support person-centred work and coordination with social care review and provider monitoring.

    Stated by East Riding of Yorkshire CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 5 November 2024.
  4. 4

    Operate a safeguarding champions programme bringing internal and external professionals together to share good practice and develop consistent sector responses.

    Stated by East Riding of Yorkshire CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 5 November 2024.
  5. 5

    Address identified practice issues with the practitioner and disseminate lessons learned across the safeguarding team.

    Stated by East Riding of Yorkshire CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 5 November 2024.
  6. 6

    Apply to the East Riding Safeguarding Adults Board for consideration of a Safeguarding Adults Review concerning Janet Brown Townend.

    Stated by East Riding of Yorkshire CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 5 November 2024.
  7. 7

    Run safeguarding audits and present quarterly findings to the practice development board for quality improvement, action oversight, and mitigation.

    Stated by East Riding of Yorkshire CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 5 November 2024.
  8. 8

    Embed recording of consultation and outcome-sharing in enquiry forms to support practitioner compliance and enable monitoring and audit.

    Stated by East Riding of Yorkshire CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 5 November 2024.
  9. 9

    Establish a dedicated safeguarding adults hub to manage incoming concerns, mitigate immediate risks, and support robust Section 42 decision-making.

    Stated by East Riding of Yorkshire CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 5 November 2024.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    The Safeguarding Adults Review Group, acting for the Safeguarding Adults Board, decides whether a proposed review should proceed.

    Stated by East Riding of Yorkshire CouncilRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.

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 practice workshops and a weekly safeguarding hub forum for guidance and case discussion.

Verbatim wording from the response

“To support high quality safeguarding adults enquiry practice, the services practice development team has implemented a training programme of practice workshops accompanied by a weekly practice forum with the safeguarding adults hub where cases can be discussed and practitioners are able receive guidance from the safeguarding adults leadership team. The service also leads a safeguarding champions programme bringing professionals from within and external to the local authority together to share good practice and develop consistent responses to safeguarding across the sector.”

Source location

Response from East Riding of Yorkshire Council
Page 4 · response
Published 5 November 2024

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 new safeguarding concern and Section 42 enquiry forms with practitioner guidance and training on thorough recording, professional curiosity, and capturing people’s voices.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In November 2023 (after this enquiry took place), as part of the implementation of a new service and practice model for safeguarding adults, the service launched a new set of forms to record safeguarding adult concerns and section 42 enquiries. These forms lead the practitioner through a much more succinct process for undertaking and recording their intervention with the voice of the person and their family/representative at the heart of the enquiry record.”

Source location

Response from East Riding of Yorkshire Council
Page 3 · response
Published 5 November 2024

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

Allocate Section 42 enquiries to appropriate locality assessment or review practitioners to support person-centred work and coordination with social care review and provider monitoring.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Where a case is progressed to a section 42 enquiry, the work is allocated to the most appropriate practitioner, usually within a locality based assessment team or the review team who are likely to have an established relationship with the person and those providing care, enabling a more person centred approach and alignment with other social care processes such as annual review and contract monitoring and compliance with providers.”

Source location

Response from East Riding of Yorkshire Council
Page 4 · response
Published 5 November 2024

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 safeguarding champions programme bringing internal and external professionals together to share good practice and develop consistent sector responses.

Verbatim wording from the response

“To support high quality safeguarding adults enquiry practice, the services practice development team has implemented a training programme of practice workshops accompanied by a weekly practice forum with the safeguarding adults hub where cases can be discussed and practitioners are able receive guidance from the safeguarding adults leadership team. The service also leads a safeguarding champions programme bringing professionals from within and external to the local authority together to share good practice and develop consistent responses to safeguarding across the sector.”

Source location

Response from East Riding of Yorkshire Council
Page 4 · response
Published 5 November 2024

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

Address identified practice issues with the practitioner and disseminate lessons learned across the safeguarding team.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The record of the enquiry also lacked analysis of the information that was received from both services approached for information and it was not fully triangulated with other information gathered from both Janet Brown Townend herself and members of her family within the record of the section 42 enquiry. It is difficult to say whether the outcome of the enquiry would have been different had these issues been addressed, however, it is acknowledged that the recorded evidence for decision making and subsequent actions in this case could have been improved. The practice issues identified in this enquiry have been addressed with the individual practitioner and lessons learned disseminated within the team.”

Source location

Response from East Riding of Yorkshire Council
Page 2 · response
Published 5 November 2024

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

Apply to the East Riding Safeguarding Adults Board for consideration of a Safeguarding Adults Review concerning Janet Brown Townend.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Further actions to be taken: Safeguarding Adults Reviews (SARs) are a statutory requirement for Safeguarding Adults Boards (SABs) under section 44 of The Care Act 2014. Safeguarding adult practice can be improved by identifying what is helping and what is hindering safeguarding work across the system partnership, in order to highlight good practice, learn lessons, continually improve, and pertinently protect adults from harm.”

Source location

Response from East Riding of Yorkshire Council
Page 4 · response
Published 5 November 2024

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

Run safeguarding audits and present quarterly findings to the practice development board for quality improvement, action oversight, and mitigation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The service has also launched a safeguarding audit to enable us to measure quality and identify themes and trends for improving and developing safeguarding adults practice further. This is overseen by the principal social worker and presented as part of the quarterly audit report to the practice development board where recommendations can be made to the Executive Director and their leadership team and to ensure collective oversight of actions taken and any required mitigations.”

Source location

Response from East Riding of Yorkshire Council
Page 4 · response
Published 5 November 2024

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

Embed recording of consultation and outcome-sharing in enquiry forms to support practitioner compliance and enable monitoring and audit.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Since this section 42 enquiry was concluded, as described above, the service has implemented new paperwork that supports the worker to ensure that they share the outcome and recommendations with relevant parties. The form requires the worker to state who they have consulted as part of the enquiry and who they have shared the outcomes and recommendations with. As well as taking steps to ensure this important process is followed by practitioners, embedding this in the forms gives the service the opportunity to monitor and audit practice and raise quality in relation to this expectation.”

Source location

Response from East Riding of Yorkshire Council
Page 3 · response
Published 5 November 2024

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 a dedicated safeguarding adults hub to manage incoming concerns, mitigate immediate risks, and support robust Section 42 decision-making.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Response Safeguarding Adults inclusive of the new paperwork mentioned above.”

Source location

Response from East Riding of Yorkshire Council
Page 4 · response
Published 5 November 2024

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 Safeguarding Adults Review Group, acting for the Safeguarding Adults Board, decides whether a proposed review should proceed.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Further actions to be taken: Safeguarding Adults Reviews (SARs) are a statutory requirement for Safeguarding Adults Boards (SABs) under section 44 of The Care Act 2014. Safeguarding adult practice can be improved by identifying what is helping and what is hindering safeguarding work across the system partnership, in order to highlight good practice, learn lessons, continually improve, and pertinently protect adults from harm.”

Source location

Response from East Riding of Yorkshire Council
Page 4 · response
Published 5 November 2024

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
2/3

Data last updated 7 September 2026