PFD report

Christopher McDonald · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 7 Apr 2025•South London

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
4

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
8

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 raised4

  1. Failure to accompany police when returning a patient from their home
  2. Lack of staff knowledge and understanding of the AWOL, missing and absent persons policy
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable AWOL response processes
  3. Failure to draw up a joint police and Trust staff action plan when police are likely to return a patient to hospital
    Part of recurring concern: Unclear healthcare and police responsibilities for safety-critical action
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.5

  1. Action

    Mandate MDT risk assessment after every AWOL incident and prompt Responsible Clinician review of leave status.

    Stated by South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 11 April 2025.
  2. Action

    Update the AWOL Policy to require a jointly agreed police and Trust action plan when police involvement in a hospital return is anticipated.

    Stated by South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 11 April 2025.
  3. Action

    Remind wards that staff must accompany police returning patients and issue guidance and briefings on collaborative working.

    Stated by South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 11 April 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 accompany police when returning a patient from their home

Wider context from the report

“The evidence heard at the inquest demonstrated that staff working on the NPU did not have knowledge or a clear understanding of the “AWOL - Missing & Absent Persons Policy” of South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (“SLAM”) Specifically: (1) Whilst there should be an individualised assessment of whether it is appropriate to suspend section 17 when a patient goes AWOL: (a) one member of staff at the inquest gave evidence that it was “standard practice” and “protocol” that leave would be suspended; and (b) there was no evidence of any individualised assessment in Mr McDonald’s case. (2) The policy provides that SLAM staff should always accompany the police if the patient is to be returned from their home. This was not done in this case, and there was no evidence that any member of NPU staff considered this once Mr McDonald was located at his mother’s address on 24 February 2023. (3) The policy provides that if the police are likely to be involved in returning the patient to hospital then an action plan – jointly drafted between the police and Trust staff - needs to be drawn up. This was not done in this case, and there was no evidence that this was considered or completed by SLAM staff. ”

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

Lack of staff knowledge and understanding of the AWOL, missing and absent persons policy

Wider context from the report

“The evidence heard at the inquest demonstrated that staff working on the NPU did not have knowledge or a clear understanding of the “AWOL - Missing & Absent Persons Policy” of South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (“SLAM”) Specifically: (1) Whilst there should be an individualised assessment of whether it is appropriate to suspend section 17 when a patient goes AWOL: (a) one member of staff at the inquest gave evidence that it was “standard practice” and “protocol” that leave would be suspended; and (b) there was no evidence of any individualised assessment in Mr McDonald’s case. (2) The policy provides that SLAM staff should always accompany the police if the patient is to be returned from their home. This was not done in this case, and there was no evidence that any member of NPU staff considered this once Mr McDonald was located at his mother’s address on 24 February 2023. (3) The policy provides that if the police are likely to be involved in returning the patient to hospital then an action plan – jointly drafted between the police and Trust staff - needs to be drawn up. This was not done in this case, and there was no evidence that this was considered or completed by SLAM staff. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable AWOL response 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 draw up a joint police and Trust staff action plan when police are likely to return a patient to hospital

Wider context from the report

“The evidence heard at the inquest demonstrated that staff working on the NPU did not have knowledge or a clear understanding of the “AWOL - Missing & Absent Persons Policy” of South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (“SLAM”) Specifically: (1) Whilst there should be an individualised assessment of whether it is appropriate to suspend section 17 when a patient goes AWOL: (a) one member of staff at the inquest gave evidence that it was “standard practice” and “protocol” that leave would be suspended; and (b) there was no evidence of any individualised assessment in Mr McDonald’s case. (2) The policy provides that SLAM staff should always accompany the police if the patient is to be returned from their home. This was not done in this case, and there was no evidence that any member of NPU staff considered this once Mr McDonald was located at his mother’s address on 24 February 2023. (3) The policy provides that if the police are likely to be involved in returning the patient to hospital then an action plan – jointly drafted between the police and Trust staff - needs to be drawn up. This was not done in this case, and there was no evidence that this was considered or completed by SLAM staff. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unclear healthcare and police responsibilities for safety-critical action.

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 individually assess whether to suspend section 17 leave when a patient goes AWOL

Wider context from the report

“The evidence heard at the inquest demonstrated that staff working on the NPU did not have knowledge or a clear understanding of the “AWOL - Missing & Absent Persons Policy” of South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (“SLAM”) Specifically: (1) Whilst there should be an individualised assessment of whether it is appropriate to suspend section 17 when a patient goes AWOL: (a) one member of staff at the inquest gave evidence that it was “standard practice” and “protocol” that leave would be suspended; and (b) there was no evidence of any individualised assessment in Mr McDonald’s case. (2) The policy provides that SLAM staff should always accompany the police if the patient is to be returned from their home. This was not done in this case, and there was no evidence that any member of NPU staff considered this once Mr McDonald was located at his mother’s address on 24 February 2023. (3) The policy provides that if the police are likely to be involved in returning the patient to hospital then an action plan – jointly drafted between the police and Trust staff - needs to be drawn up. This was not done in this case, and there was no evidence that this was considered or completed by SLAM staff. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable mental-health patient leave arrangements; Unsafe management of inpatient leave and absence.

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

Mandate MDT risk assessment after every AWOL incident and prompt Responsible Clinician review of leave status.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Action:”

Source location

Response from South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 11 April 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

Update the AWOL Policy to require a jointly agreed police and Trust action plan when police involvement in a hospital return is anticipated.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3. Joint Action Planning with Police”

Source location

Response from South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 11 April 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

Remind wards that staff must accompany police returning patients and issue guidance and briefings on collaborative working.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Actions:”

Source location

Response from South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 11 April 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

Cascade the AWOL safety measures through Trust-wide bulletins and briefings, obtaining formal directorate confirmation of implementation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• These actions will be shared and cascaded via Trust-wide through a blue light bulletin. Each directorate will be required to provide formal confirmation of full implementation to ensure accountability.”

Source location

Response from South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 11 April 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

Deliver bespoke AWOL Policy refresher training to the National Psychosis Unit and monitor attendance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Bespoke Refresher training on all aspects of the AWOL Policy will be delivered to the National Psychosis Unit. Attendance will be monitored to ensure consistent understanding and application of the policy.”

Source location

Response from South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 11 April 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

    Require explicit documentation of Section 17 leave conditions in individualised care plans and monitor compliance through Mental Health Act audits.

    Stated by South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation TrustStatus unclearThe respondent did not make the status of this action clear when they made their response on 11 April 2025.
  2. 2

    Require out-of-hours consultation with designated senior clinical or managerial staff for oversight and risk management.

    Stated by South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation TrustStatus unclearThe respondent did not make the status of this action clear when they made their response on 11 April 2025.
  3. 3

    Require MDT-developed Section 17 care plans to specify steps to follow when a patient does not return.

    Stated by South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 11 April 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

Require explicit documentation of Section 17 leave conditions in individualised care plans and monitor compliance through Mental Health Act audits.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• All wards must ensure that Section 17 leave conditions are explicitly documented in each patient’s individualised care plan. Compliance will be monitored through Mental Health Act Audits via the Trust’s electronic audit system, Tableau.”

Source location

Response from South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 11 April 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

Require out-of-hours consultation with designated senior clinical or managerial staff for oversight and risk management.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Action:”

Source location

Response from South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 11 April 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

Require MDT-developed Section 17 care plans to specify steps to follow when a patient does not return.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• The NPU will receive refresher training and all other Trust wards will receive a briefing/bulletin to reinforce the policy's procedures, including joint action planning.”

Source location

Response from South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 11 April 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