PFD report

Callum James Hargreaves · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 28 May 2025•Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

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
3

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

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 raised3

  1. Failure to complete Nearest Relative details on the MH 1 form
    Part of recurring concern: Incomplete recording of legally relevant relative details in mental-health recordsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable Mental Health Act assessment documentation
  2. Failure to record the rationale for decisions not to detain following mental health assessments
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to reliably document the rationale for consequential decisionsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable recording of safety-critical mental health information
  3. Failure to further explore a patient's decision not to involve a relevant family member in discharge notification
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to involve families and carers in discharge planning and decisionsPart of recurring concern: Failure to involve families and carers in mental health care planning and decisionsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable hospital discharge processes
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.1

  1. Action

    Transfer Mental Health Act assessment recording from RIO to Mosaic to enable inclusion in the audit programme.

    Stated by Cornwall CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 9 June 2025.

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 complete Nearest Relative details on the MH 1 form

Wider context from the report

“At inquest, the court heard from Gail Ashton who was the AMHP involved in the mental health act assessment conducted overnight on 19 & 20 January 2024. 1) One issue that arose was whether Callum presented with an imminent and significant risk of harm to justify a short-term admission into hospital as is provided for in NICE guidance. Ms Ashton said this was expressly discussed by the clinicians concerned. It was felt he was likely to be withdrawing and there were no resuscitation facilities available in Longreach. She also said the vulnerabilities of others on the ward needed to be considered all of which contributed to the decision not to detain Callum in hospital. She accepted that this rationale was not recorded in the notes. 2) Callum was asked whether he wanted his mother (who he described as his rock) notified of his discharge. He said that he did not. This was not tested or challenged where GMC guidance is that it may be appropriate to do so. The Nearest Relative details on the MH 1 form were not completed. The expert who reviewed the case felt there were ‘obvious gaps’ in the record keeping and that as Callum’s mother was one of the few levers available to the assessing team, Callum’s decision not to involve her should have been explored further. You may feel these omissions should be learned from when assessments are conducted in the future and, in particular, when notes of an assessment are subsequently recorded. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Incomplete recording of legally relevant relative details in mental-health records; Unreliable Mental Health Act assessment documentation.

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 the rationale for decisions not to detain following mental health assessments

Wider context from the report

“At inquest, the court heard from Gail Ashton who was the AMHP involved in the mental health act assessment conducted overnight on 19 & 20 January 2024. 1) One issue that arose was whether Callum presented with an imminent and significant risk of harm to justify a short-term admission into hospital as is provided for in NICE guidance. Ms Ashton said this was expressly discussed by the clinicians concerned. It was felt he was likely to be withdrawing and there were no resuscitation facilities available in Longreach. She also said the vulnerabilities of others on the ward needed to be considered all of which contributed to the decision not to detain Callum in hospital. She accepted that this rationale was not recorded in the notes. 2) Callum was asked whether he wanted his mother (who he described as his rock) notified of his discharge. He said that he did not. This was not tested or challenged where GMC guidance is that it may be appropriate to do so. The Nearest Relative details on the MH 1 form were not completed. The expert who reviewed the case felt there were ‘obvious gaps’ in the record keeping and that as Callum’s mother was one of the few levers available to the assessing team, Callum’s decision not to involve her should have been explored further. You may feel these omissions should be learned from when assessments are conducted in the future and, in particular, when notes of an assessment are subsequently recorded. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably document the rationale for consequential decisions; Unreliable recording of safety-critical mental health information.

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 further explore a patient's decision not to involve a relevant family member in discharge notification

Wider context from the report

“At inquest, the court heard from Gail Ashton who was the AMHP involved in the mental health act assessment conducted overnight on 19 & 20 January 2024. 1) One issue that arose was whether Callum presented with an imminent and significant risk of harm to justify a short-term admission into hospital as is provided for in NICE guidance. Ms Ashton said this was expressly discussed by the clinicians concerned. It was felt he was likely to be withdrawing and there were no resuscitation facilities available in Longreach. She also said the vulnerabilities of others on the ward needed to be considered all of which contributed to the decision not to detain Callum in hospital. She accepted that this rationale was not recorded in the notes. 2) Callum was asked whether he wanted his mother (who he described as his rock) notified of his discharge. He said that he did not. This was not tested or challenged where GMC guidance is that it may be appropriate to do so. The Nearest Relative details on the MH 1 form were not completed. The expert who reviewed the case felt there were ‘obvious gaps’ in the record keeping and that as Callum’s mother was one of the few levers available to the assessing team, Callum’s decision not to involve her should have been explored further. You may feel these omissions should be learned from when assessments are conducted in the future and, in particular, when notes of an assessment are subsequently recorded. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to involve families and carers in discharge planning and decisions; Failure to involve families and carers in mental health care planning and decisions; Unreliable hospital discharge processes.

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

Transfer Mental Health Act assessment recording from RIO to Mosaic to enable inclusion in the audit programme.

Verbatim wording from the response

“From the 14th of May 2025, the local authority has been proactively implementing a change in where Mental Health Act (MHA) assessments are recorded. This is a departure from the current practice of recording on the health database (RIO) to recording on the Adult Social Care database (Mosaic). This change will allow us to incorporate MHA assessments into our audit programme, thereby supporting improved quality and consistency in documentation and recording.”

Source location

Response from Cornwall Council (Care and Wellbeing)
Page 3 · response
Published 9 June 2025

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.3

  1. 1

    Develop and disseminate safety-planning guidance to Approved Mental Health Professionals following assessments.

    Stated by Cornwall CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 June 2025.
  2. 2

    Implement the safety-planning guidance immediately after formal adoption.

    Stated by Cornwall CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 9 June 2025.
  3. 3

    Progress the safety-planning guidance through governance processes for formal adoption.

    Stated by Cornwall CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 9 June 2025.

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

Develop and disseminate safety-planning guidance to Approved Mental Health Professionals following assessments.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have developed and disseminated guidance for Approved Mental Health Professionals (AMHPs) on safety planning following assessments. This guidance has been shared with all AMHPs within our service and is currently progressing through our governance processes before formal adoption. Upon formal adoption, it will be implemented immediately thereafter. Unfortunately, due to the systems of governance within the local authority, no more precise details about timetabling can be provided at this point.”

Source location

Response from Cornwall Council (Care and Wellbeing)
Page 3 · response
Published 9 June 2025

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 the safety-planning guidance immediately after formal adoption.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have developed and disseminated guidance for Approved Mental Health Professionals (AMHPs) on safety planning following assessments. This guidance has been shared with all AMHPs within our service and is currently progressing through our governance processes before formal adoption. Upon formal adoption, it will be implemented immediately thereafter. Unfortunately, due to the systems of governance within the local authority, no more precise details about timetabling can be provided at this point.”

Source location

Response from Cornwall Council (Care and Wellbeing)
Page 3 · response
Published 9 June 2025

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

Progress the safety-planning guidance through governance processes for formal adoption.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have developed and disseminated guidance for Approved Mental Health Professionals (AMHPs) on safety planning following assessments. This guidance has been shared with all AMHPs within our service and is currently progressing through our governance processes before formal adoption. Upon formal adoption, it will be implemented immediately thereafter. Unfortunately, due to the systems of governance within the local authority, no more precise details about timetabling can be provided at this point.”

Source location

Response from Cornwall Council (Care and Wellbeing)
Page 3 · response
Published 9 June 2025

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
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026