PFD report

Fadhia SEGULEH · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 27 Aug 2021•Manchester South

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 to enable relevant family input during emergency mental health assessment
    Part of recurring concern: Incomplete clinical history-takingPart of recurring concern: Unreliable gathering and use of collateral information in mental health assessments
  2. Telephone-only GP assessments of mental health risk and need
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to provide face-to-face mental health assessment when clinically indicatedPart of recurring concern: Inadequate mental health risk assessmentPart of recurring concern: Inadequate telephone mental health assessment
  3. Lack of coordinated information sharing between professionals involved in mental health care
    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 to enable relevant family input during emergency mental health assessment

Wider context from the report

“3. The inquest heard evidence that she had on a previous occasion been taken to A and E due to concerns that she would take her own life/self-harm. Due to Covid she had to go alone to A and E and was assessed alone without input from her family who were aware of the full picture. The experience of attending alone whilst experiencing mental health issues was deeply stressful for her and meant that she had been unsupported by her family at a time of crisis. In addition, the quality of information available was limited as a result of her being there alone. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Incomplete clinical history-taking; Unreliable gathering and use of collateral information in mental health 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

Telephone-only GP assessments of mental health risk and need

Wider context from the report

“2. As a consequence of Covid all of the assessments of her by her GP in relation to her mental health were done via telephone. Prior to Covid it was likely that they would have been done face to face. It was accepted that assessments of mental health risk and understanding of need was far easier to assess face to face. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to provide face-to-face mental health assessment when clinically indicated; Inadequate mental health risk assessment; Inadequate telephone mental health assessment.

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 coordinated information sharing between professionals involved in mental health care

Wider context from the report

“1. The inquest heard evidence that she was being treated by the NHS Mental Health Trust, GP and through private therapy provided by her employer. As a consequence, the professionals treating her did not have a full picture of disclosures made by her and professionals operated in silos. There was no protocol in place for information sharing between those involved and no policy to guide appropriate steps to obtain information. A query raised with the GP would have enabled a clearer picture of the issues to be held by the private provider. Information sharing would have provided a more rounded understanding of risks. The operation in silos meant that the treatment plan put in place by the mental health team including medication was not fully understood by the GP and was altered following a consultation between the GP and Fadhia. Information sharing between agencies would have allowed for a more detailed assessment of risk in the situation. ”

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.