PFD report

Kevin George Morgan · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 22 May 2017•Milton Keynes

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
7

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
5

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 raised7

  1. Failure to convene senior professionals to consider cases and prepare a plan
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to convene coordinated professional case-planning discussions for safety concernsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable social-care case review and closure decisions
  2. Failure to refer incidents for safeguarding review and learning
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable safeguarding review and learning processes
  3. Failure to conduct Serious Incident Reviews after deaths
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate safety incident investigationsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable formal safety-incident management 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.2

  1. Action

    Undertake the multi-agency learning review, including practitioner engagement, case-report analysis, concern analysis and a practice-improvement report with dissemination recommendations.

    Stated by Milton Keynes Safeguarding BoardStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 31 August 2017.
  2. Action

    Commission a multi-agency learning review to identify lessons, improve practice and reduce the likelihood of similar cases.

    Stated by Milton Keynes Safeguarding BoardStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 31 August 2017.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

  1. Position

    The case did not meet statutory criteria for a Safeguarding Adults Review, so that review could not be conducted.

    Stated by Milton Keynes Safeguarding BoardUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.

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 convene senior professionals to consider cases and prepare a plan

Wider context from the report

“(5) It was accepted by the Adult Social Care Access Team that a meeting of senior professionals should have been called to consider the case and prepare a plan. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to convene coordinated professional case-planning discussions for safety concerns; Unreliable social-care case review and closure 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 refer incidents for safeguarding review and learning

Wider context from the report

“(6) Following the death of Kevin Morgan there was no Serious Incident Review conducted by social services and it was not referred for a safeguarding review so that lessons have not been learned from this incident. Without such a review a similar incident could occur in the future. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable safeguarding review and learning processes.

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 conduct Serious Incident Reviews after deaths

Wider context from the report

“(6) Following the death of Kevin Morgan there was no Serious Incident Review conducted by social services and it was not referred for a safeguarding review so that lessons have not been learned from this incident. Without such a review a similar incident could occur in the future. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety incident investigations; Unreliable formal safety-incident management processes.

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 take further action after senior management case reviews

Wider context from the report

“(3) That the case was reviewed by senior managers on at least two occasions and no further action was taken. ”

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 respond effectively to safeguarding alerts when the person does not engage

Wider context from the report

“(2) That a safeguarding alert was completed by Kevin Morgan’s Mother and, despite her serious concerns, the response was to arrange a visit where Kevin Morgan refused to engage. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

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

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

Lack of effective follow-up to identified problems

Wider context from the report

“(1)That social services and the housing team were aware of the problems experienced by Kevin Morgan and yet there was no effective follow up. ”

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 request an appropriate police concern-for-safety visit

Wider context from the report

“(4) The police were never requested to conduct a concern for safety visit despite such a visit being recognised as appropriate. ”

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

Undertake the multi-agency learning review, including practitioner engagement, case-report analysis, concern analysis and a practice-improvement report with dissemination recommendations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Mr M’s mother and other family members of her choice (through the opportunity to meet and speak to the review chair and a review group member)”

Source location

2017-0165-Response-by-Milton-Keynes-Safeguarding-Board
Page 2 · response
Published 31 August 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

Commission a multi-agency learning review to identify lessons, improve practice and reduce the likelihood of similar cases.

Verbatim wording from the response

“My decision is that the case does not meet the criteria for a Safeguarding Adult Review, but as I share many of the concerns you expressed in your Regulation 28 report, I have commissioned another more flexible but no less rigorous form of review called a learning review in order to establish what can be learnt from the case to improve practice and reduce the likelihood of similar cases occurring. I am happy to send you my full decision should you wish to see it, but have set out below the decision and the commission for a learning review for your information.”

Source location

2017-0165-Response-by-Milton-Keynes-Safeguarding-Board
Page 1 · response
Published 31 August 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 case did not meet statutory criteria for a Safeguarding Adults Review, so that review could not be conducted.

Verbatim wording from the response

“My decision is that the case does not meet the criteria for a Safeguarding Adult Review, but as I share many of the concerns you expressed in your Regulation 28 report, I have commissioned another more flexible but no less rigorous form of review called a learning review in order to establish what can be learnt from the case to improve practice and reduce the likelihood of similar cases occurring. I am happy to send you my full decision should you wish to see it, but have set out below the decision and the commission for a learning review for your information.”

Source location

2017-0165-Response-by-Milton-Keynes-Safeguarding-Board
Page 1 · response
Published 31 August 2017

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

    Sign off the learning review’s terms of reference.

    Stated by Milton Keynes Safeguarding BoardStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 31 August 2017.
  2. 2

    Report the conclusion of the learning review to the Chief Executive and the deceased person’s mother.

    Stated by Milton Keynes Safeguarding BoardStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 31 August 2017.
  3. 3

    Consider why the response to the Regulation 28 report was delayed.

    Stated by Milton Keynes Safeguarding BoardStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 31 August 2017.

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

Sign off the learning review’s terms of reference.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The terms of reference for the learning review should be drafted by the panel and signed off by me.”

Source location

2017-0165-Response-by-Milton-Keynes-Safeguarding-Board
Page 2 · response
Published 31 August 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

Report the conclusion of the learning review to the Chief Executive and the deceased person’s mother.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I will be reporting to the Chief Executive and to Mr M’s mother on the conclusion of the review process.”

Source location

2017-0165-Response-by-Milton-Keynes-Safeguarding-Board
Page 2 · response
Published 31 August 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

Consider why the response to the Regulation 28 report was delayed.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is nearly 12 months since you wrote to ████████, and the response should have come much sooner. I will be considering why it took so long as part of the actions I have decided to take, but believe it to be a consequence of a major restructure, major staff shortages and a lack of rigour in the tracking systems that were in place until relatively recently. Whatever the cause it should not have taken so long however and I apologise for the delay.”

Source location

2017-0165-Response-by-Milton-Keynes-Safeguarding-Board
Page 1 · response
Published 31 August 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

Official responses located
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026