PFD report

Sam Michael Carl Grant · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 26 Jul 2019•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
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
0

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
0

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 raised3

  1. Failure of school healthcare provision to share confidential health information with GP surgeries
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable inter-agency information sharing for coordinated care
  2. Lack of lower-level assistance for young people with life issues who do not meet CAMHS access criteria
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to provide care for vulnerable people excluded by service thresholds
  3. Failure to share relevant information between health agencies for fully informed healthcare decisions
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable inter-agency information sharing for coordinated care
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 of school healthcare provision to share confidential health information with GP surgeries

Wider context from the report

“1) Sam’s GP referred Sam to CAMHS when he presented to the GP with irritability, anger and a report that he was close to being excluded from school. CAMHS rejected the referral because Sam did not meet their threshold of moderate to severe mental health issues. CAMHS did not suggest any alternative assistance. The GP did follow up with Sam to sign post him to two independent organisations who Sam would have to approach independently for help. The GP made it clear in his evidence that there is a lack of lower level assistance for young people who present with ‘life issues’ such as low mood, irritability and anger issues, but who nonetheless need help and assistance but do not meet the criteria for access to CAMHS services. 2) Sam had been referred to, and was receiving the services of COMPASS having been referred by his School. The GP was not made aware of this engagement and was unable to take this into account at the time when Sam did present himself to the GP. The evidence from COMPASS is that they maintain the confidentiality of patients even minors using their services unless they have express consent to disclose that information from the patient themselves. Without all relevant information neither the GP nor CAMHS was in a position to make a fully informed decision about the Sam’s needs. Sharing of information between relevant health agencies to ensure fully informed decisions are made as regards the healthcare needs of an individual should be a priority. 3) Evidence at the inquest from the GP also indicated that a reduction in healthcare provision at Sam’s school and in particular the removal of a medically qualified person(s) has meant that confidential health information is no longer shared between the school and the GP surgery. The school now only engages First Aiders, who are not medically qualified, and who do not therefore exchange information which in the past has proved essential in flagging concerns between the GP and the School. This is another route which has been closed and which would have allowed a potential flag to have been raised in respect of concerns around Sam and his wellbeing to be shared confidentially between GP and school. 2) Sam had been referred to, and was receiving the services of COMPASS having been referred by his School. The GP was not made aware of this engagement and was unable to take this into account at the time when Sam did present himself to the GP. The evidence from COMPASS is that they maintain the confidentiality of patients even minors using their services unless they have express consent to disclose that information from the patient themselves. Without all relevant information neither the GP nor CAMHS was in a position to make a fully informed decision about the Sam’s needs. Sharing of information between relevant health agencies to ensure fully informed decisions are made as regards the healthcare needs of an individual should be a priority. 3) Evidence at the inquest from the GP also indicated that a reduction in healthcare provision at Sam’s school and in particular the removal of a medically qualified person(s) has meant that confidential health information is no longer shared between the school and the GP surgery. The school now only engages First Aiders, who are not medically qualified, and who do not therefore exchange information which in the past has proved essential in flagging concerns between the GP and the School. This is another route which has been closed and which would have allowed a potential flag to have been raised in respect of concerns around Sam and his wellbeing to be shared confidentially between GP and school. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable inter-agency information sharing for coordinated 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

Lack of lower-level assistance for young people with life issues who do not meet CAMHS access criteria

Wider context from the report

“1) Sam’s GP referred Sam to CAMHS when he presented to the GP with irritability, anger and a report that he was close to being excluded from school. CAMHS rejected the referral because Sam did not meet their threshold of moderate to severe mental health issues. CAMHS did not suggest any alternative assistance. The GP did follow up with Sam to sign post him to two independent organisations who Sam would have to approach independently for help. The GP made it clear in his evidence that there is a lack of lower level assistance for young people who present with ‘life issues’ such as low mood, irritability and anger issues, but who nonetheless need help and assistance but do not meet the criteria for access to CAMHS services. 2) Sam had been referred to, and was receiving the services of COMPASS having been referred by his School. The GP was not made aware of this engagement and was unable to take this into account at the time when Sam did present himself to the GP. The evidence from COMPASS is that they maintain the confidentiality of patients even minors using their services unless they have express consent to disclose that information from the patient themselves. Without all relevant information neither the GP nor CAMHS was in a position to make a fully informed decision about the Sam’s needs. Sharing of information between relevant health agencies to ensure fully informed decisions are made as regards the healthcare needs of an individual should be a priority. 3) Evidence at the inquest from the GP also indicated that a reduction in healthcare provision at Sam’s school and in particular the removal of a medically qualified person(s) has meant that confidential health information is no longer shared between the school and the GP surgery. The school now only engages First Aiders, who are not medically qualified, and who do not therefore exchange information which in the past has proved essential in flagging concerns between the GP and the School. This is another route which has been closed and which would have allowed a potential flag to have been raised in respect of concerns around Sam and his wellbeing to be shared confidentially between GP and school. 2) Sam had been referred to, and was receiving the services of COMPASS having been referred by his School. The GP was not made aware of this engagement and was unable to take this into account at the time when Sam did present himself to the GP. The evidence from COMPASS is that they maintain the confidentiality of patients even minors using their services unless they have express consent to disclose that information from the patient themselves. Without all relevant information neither the GP nor CAMHS was in a position to make a fully informed decision about the Sam’s needs. Sharing of information between relevant health agencies to ensure fully informed decisions are made as regards the healthcare needs of an individual should be a priority. 3) Evidence at the inquest from the GP also indicated that a reduction in healthcare provision at Sam’s school and in particular the removal of a medically qualified person(s) has meant that confidential health information is no longer shared between the school and the GP surgery. The school now only engages First Aiders, who are not medically qualified, and who do not therefore exchange information which in the past has proved essential in flagging concerns between the GP and the School. This is another route which has been closed and which would have allowed a potential flag to have been raised in respect of concerns around Sam and his wellbeing to be shared confidentially between GP and school. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to provide care for vulnerable people excluded by service thresholds.

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 share relevant information between health agencies for fully informed healthcare decisions

Wider context from the report

“1) Sam’s GP referred Sam to CAMHS when he presented to the GP with irritability, anger and a report that he was close to being excluded from school. CAMHS rejected the referral because Sam did not meet their threshold of moderate to severe mental health issues. CAMHS did not suggest any alternative assistance. The GP did follow up with Sam to sign post him to two independent organisations who Sam would have to approach independently for help. The GP made it clear in his evidence that there is a lack of lower level assistance for young people who present with ‘life issues’ such as low mood, irritability and anger issues, but who nonetheless need help and assistance but do not meet the criteria for access to CAMHS services. 2) Sam had been referred to, and was receiving the services of COMPASS having been referred by his School. The GP was not made aware of this engagement and was unable to take this into account at the time when Sam did present himself to the GP. The evidence from COMPASS is that they maintain the confidentiality of patients even minors using their services unless they have express consent to disclose that information from the patient themselves. Without all relevant information neither the GP nor CAMHS was in a position to make a fully informed decision about the Sam’s needs. Sharing of information between relevant health agencies to ensure fully informed decisions are made as regards the healthcare needs of an individual should be a priority. 3) Evidence at the inquest from the GP also indicated that a reduction in healthcare provision at Sam’s school and in particular the removal of a medically qualified person(s) has meant that confidential health information is no longer shared between the school and the GP surgery. The school now only engages First Aiders, who are not medically qualified, and who do not therefore exchange information which in the past has proved essential in flagging concerns between the GP and the School. This is another route which has been closed and which would have allowed a potential flag to have been raised in respect of concerns around Sam and his wellbeing to be shared confidentially between GP and school. 2) Sam had been referred to, and was receiving the services of COMPASS having been referred by his School. The GP was not made aware of this engagement and was unable to take this into account at the time when Sam did present himself to the GP. The evidence from COMPASS is that they maintain the confidentiality of patients even minors using their services unless they have express consent to disclose that information from the patient themselves. Without all relevant information neither the GP nor CAMHS was in a position to make a fully informed decision about the Sam’s needs. Sharing of information between relevant health agencies to ensure fully informed decisions are made as regards the healthcare needs of an individual should be a priority. 3) Evidence at the inquest from the GP also indicated that a reduction in healthcare provision at Sam’s school and in particular the removal of a medically qualified person(s) has meant that confidential health information is no longer shared between the school and the GP surgery. The school now only engages First Aiders, who are not medically qualified, and who do not therefore exchange information which in the past has proved essential in flagging concerns between the GP and the School. This is another route which has been closed and which would have allowed a potential flag to have been raised in respect of concerns around Sam and his wellbeing to be shared confidentially between GP and school. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable inter-agency information sharing for coordinated care.

Open source report
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
0/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026

No official response is included in the current published snapshot.