PFD report

Keith Samuel Peters · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 20 Dec 2013•Manchester West

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 allocate assessments to officers with sufficient availability for completion within the required period
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable case allocation and resolution of allocation disputes
  2. Failure to prioritise assessments approaching or exceeding the twenty-eight-day completion period
    Part of recurring concern: Untimely or incomplete community care assessments
  3. Lack of a system for referring overdue assessments for reallocation to another officer
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable case allocation and resolution of allocation disputesPart of recurring concern: Untimely or incomplete community care assessments
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

    Develop electronic monitoring and trigger functions to alert staff and managers to assessment timescales requiring prioritisation or reallocation.

    Stated by Bolton Borough CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 20 December 2013.
  2. Action

    Provide six-weekly formal supervision and daily case discussions where required, supported by a systematic approach to reprioritisation or reallocation.

    Stated by Bolton Borough CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 20 December 2013.
  3. Action

    Communicate staff and manager responsibilities for alerting case managers when assessment timescales may not be met.

    Stated by Bolton Borough CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 20 December 2013.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.2

  1. Position

    The case did not appear urgent, and the allocated worker should have had sufficient time to complete the assessment.

    Stated by Bolton Borough CouncilDisputes 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 allocate assessments to officers with sufficient availability for completion within the required period

Wider context from the report

“Brief circumstances of matters of concern (1) Mr Peters’ case was allocated to a Community Assessment Officer who was on annual leave at the time, and whose future leave commitments resulted in her having limited time to complete Mr Peters’ assessment within the required period. (2) During the periods when the Community Assessment Officer was available there is no evidence of Mr Peters’ case being prioritised, neither when the twenty eight day period allowed for the assessment to be completed was approaching expiry, nor when that period had expired. (3) The manager of the North STARS team gave evidence at the Inquest that there was no system in place for Officers to refer a case back to the Manager for re allocation to another Officer when it became clear that an assessment was not going to be completed within the twenty eight days required. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable case allocation and resolution of allocation disputes.

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 prioritise assessments approaching or exceeding the twenty-eight-day completion period

Wider context from the report

“Brief circumstances of matters of concern (1) Mr Peters’ case was allocated to a Community Assessment Officer who was on annual leave at the time, and whose future leave commitments resulted in her having limited time to complete Mr Peters’ assessment within the required period. (2) During the periods when the Community Assessment Officer was available there is no evidence of Mr Peters’ case being prioritised, neither when the twenty eight day period allowed for the assessment to be completed was approaching expiry, nor when that period had expired. (3) The manager of the North STARS team gave evidence at the Inquest that there was no system in place for Officers to refer a case back to the Manager for re allocation to another Officer when it became clear that an assessment was not going to be completed within the twenty eight days required. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Untimely or incomplete community care assessments.

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 a system for referring overdue assessments for reallocation to another officer

Wider context from the report

“Brief circumstances of matters of concern (1) Mr Peters’ case was allocated to a Community Assessment Officer who was on annual leave at the time, and whose future leave commitments resulted in her having limited time to complete Mr Peters’ assessment within the required period. (2) During the periods when the Community Assessment Officer was available there is no evidence of Mr Peters’ case being prioritised, neither when the twenty eight day period allowed for the assessment to be completed was approaching expiry, nor when that period had expired. (3) The manager of the North STARS team gave evidence at the Inquest that there was no system in place for Officers to refer a case back to the Manager for re allocation to another Officer when it became clear that an assessment was not going to be completed within the twenty eight days required. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable case allocation and resolution of allocation disputes; Untimely or incomplete community care assessments.

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

Develop electronic monitoring and trigger functions to alert staff and managers to assessment timescales requiring prioritisation or reallocation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The service will develop a monitoring and trigger function within the electronic system for staff and managers to be alerted to timescales for risk assessment prioritisation or reallocation as necessary.”

Source location

2013-0378-Response-by-Bolton-Council
Page 3 · response
Published 20 December 2013

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

Provide six-weekly formal supervision and daily case discussions where required, supported by a systematic approach to reprioritisation or reallocation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Action Staff to receive formal supervision on a 6 weekly basis and case discussions on a daily basis if required. The service does accept that a more systematic approach would be of benefit to managers and staff to enable reaching the 28 day period to enable reprioritisation/reallocation as necessary.”

Source location

2013-0378-Response-by-Bolton-Council
Page 3 · response
Published 20 December 2013

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

Communicate staff and manager responsibilities for alerting case managers when assessment timescales may not be met.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Action Staff to be reminded of personal responsibilities to alert their case manager to cases where timescales may not be met.”

Source location

2013-0378-Response-by-Bolton-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 20 December 2013

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 appear urgent, and the allocated worker should have had sufficient time to complete the assessment.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Area of concern Mr P’s case was allocated to Community Assessment 1 who was on leave at the time, and whose future leave resulted in having limited time to complete Mr P’s assessment within the required period.”

Source location

2013-0378-Response-by-Bolton-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 20 December 2013

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

Unavailable referral information did not identify risks requiring prioritisation, while daily welfare checks found no concerns or increasing risks.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Service Response The service considers that there was significant information that was not shared at the point of referral that could have highlighted risks to the case worker and manager to prioritise casework.”

Source location

2013-0378-Response-by-Bolton-Council
Page 3 · response
Published 20 December 2013

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.1

  1. 1

    Improve contract and referral documentation with mandatory questions and health-risk assessment fields.

    Stated by Bolton Borough CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 20 December 2013.

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

Improve contract and referral documentation with mandatory questions and health-risk assessment fields.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Improvements will be made to the contract/referral documentation to include mandatory fields to include questions asked and include a risk assessment on health including recording any health conditions to support the full risk information being ascertained at the earliest point in the process.”

Source location

2013-0378-Response-by-Bolton-Council
Page 3 · response
Published 20 December 2013

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